DxE investigator and animal rescuer Zoe Rosenberg is on trial in Sonoma County, California. She is facing years in jail for rescuing four sick and injured chickens from Perdue’s Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse. All media requests to record the trial have been denied, but you can follow along through these Court Watch summaries, on our Perdue Rescue Trial X account, on our Instagram, and on UnchainedTV. Check back regularly for new updates. Want to take action? Sign the petition at RightToRescue.com and share the news with your friends and family.

Monday, October 6th

Today's court session kicked off the opening statements, both from the prosecution then the defense.

Jessalee Mills spoke for the prosecution. Her opening statement focused on characterizing Zoe as an activist who flaunts and ignores the law when she doesn't like it, in order to impose her beliefs about animal liberation. Zoe and her co-conspirators, Mills says, snuck inside the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse dressed as employees in order to go into offices, access computer filings, and stay for hours when nobody else was present on the property. And on June 13 while the slaughterhouse was operating she entered and removed four chickens, before leaving in a rental car.

She contrasts the entry to DxE protesters gathered peacefully and legally outside the slaughterhouse to protest. Mills lists a series of farms that she says Zoe wants to shut down - including Reichardt Duck Farm, Foster Farms, and Weber Family Farms. Although Zoe will say it's compassion, Mills says that "The evidence will leave no doubt this was not a rescue." Mills makes it clear that the prosecution sees the case as solely about what was done, not at all about why.

Kevin Little then spoke for the defense. He began by pointing out that the evidence in the case comes from the defense willingly supplying it as part of open rescue. Their reason for that is that the question of the case is not about the what, but about the why. He then explains Open Rescue, because as he says Mills misdefined it. Open Rescue, he says, is rescuing animals with good reason to believe that they were experiencing animal cruelty. Zoe only went in after proof that the slaughterhouse was disregarding animal welfare. And she only acted after alerting the sheriff's office, welfare agencies, and the DA. And she was told repeatedly that they weren't interested.

The issue that Zoe went in to ameliorate, Little continued, was an issue with the slaughter process not being set up to handle a sick chicken properly. Chickens are hung by their legs to a conveyor which first takes them to a stunning bath. A sick bird not breathing properly may not be stunned by the process, and therefore enter the next stage conscious. Next they move through a machine intended to slit their necks, but if their necks don't line up they may not be slit, and a conscious chicken will not move the same way as an unconscious one would. And so they'd go to the next stage, the scalding tank, still alive. The scalding tank is boiling water meant to loosen their feathers; but live chickens will also be boiled alive in it. Not even the industry says this should happen, says Little.

Little recaps his case: Zoe found Azalea, Ivy, Poppy, and Aster on the 13th of June. They were sick and would not successfully get through slaughter. She rescued them and they're now instead happy and healthy, with examination from vets and caretakers. The jury doesn't have to believe that she was right to do so, but that she had a good faith belief that she was. Zoe, he says, did not act criminally, she acted with good faith to prevent cruelty.

After opening statements, the prosecution called their first witness, David Arvizo, who is a deputy in the sheriff's office. He was called to the slaughterhouse on the night of the rescue, June 13. With him, they went through the events of the night - mostly him hearing about the rescue after the fact and being shown a hole in the fence. They also went through all of the security footage for each day that there was an entry into the slaughterhouse, having him lay the foundation for who it was and when.

Arvizo's testimony is not yet over. It will continue tomorrow, followed by cross examination by the defense.

Tuesday, October 7th

WATCH RECAP VIDEO

Trial opened without the jury today, for counsel to go over a couple motions. Hobson wanted to include some social media posts from Zoe, ranging from 2017 to 2024. After some discussion on them, Gnoss ruled that only the ones directly after the rescue would be admissible as relevant. The others would be potentially admissible if Zoe's direct testimony made them relevant to contradict her with them.

Carraway also wanted a series of newer evidence brought in last minute by prosecution to be inadmissible, on the grounds that it was skirting reasonable discovery by being raised last minute. Details about the slaughterhouse being inspected, a manual cutter who would slaughter missed chickens, randomized spot-checking with cameras by Arrowsight, and a claim about red paint markings on chickens were all brought up last minute. If he'd have time he would've subpoenaed for details, submitted FOIA requests, and possibly had other defenses prepared. As is, it being too late to meaningfully respond hurts Zoe's ability to raise a legal defense. Gnoss said he was not happy with both sides for last-minute submissions, and said he'd have 402 hearings before each of the new things could be brought up.

After that the jury was brought in, and we returned to Arvizo to finish going over the security footage from the night of the rescue. Before finishing with Arvizo the prosecution brings in Michael Bailey, in charge of cybersecurity at Perdue. He testified to shutting down the computers for a day in order to check for viruses, to finding some files had been sent to an external email, and to removing the three computers that had been accessed (likely via a sticky note with the username and password that was next to the computer). Little crosses him to confirm that he didn't find any viruses, malware, or remote access; and he's excused.

Lastly the jury leaves and the court goes over the very recent subpoenas of Lewis Bernier, Paul Darwin Picklesimer, and Cassie King, none of whose subpoenas were explained to defense or the witnesses. The subpoenas are for them to appear in court to testify, and are ex parte, meaning they don't require the defense to know about them to submit them.

Hobson wants to conditionally go over the investigation manual with Bernier, and says he won't go over it unless the door is specifically opened by the defense.

They wanted to use King's response to the Merced DA after the acquittal in the 2023 Foster Farms Rescue Trial, where the DA had said it was illegal and King responded that they'd continue to do open rescues. Gnoss found that King's statements weren't relevant to Zoe and Mills agreed to drop the subpoena.

Picklesimer was present at the protest outside the slaughterhouse; and the prosecution wanted to use that and their general involvement with DxE at similar open rescues. Gnoss said they could use their presence at the slaughterhouse to sustain the subpoena, but did not rule specifically to the scope of their allowed testimony.

Wednesday, October 8th

Judge Gnoss does not hold trial court on Wednesdays so we're off today.

Thursday, October 9th

The prosecution continued their case today with Deputy Arvizo back on the stand. There were a few more questions about security footage, and then it was the defense’s turn to cross-examine him. Little asked Arvizo about his awareness surrounding reports of criminal animal cruelty at Petaluma Poultry. He testified that he personally was not aware of any reports prior to June 13th and is also not aware that any investigations were ever done by the Petaluma Police Department or the Sonoma County Sheriff’s office. He testified that he did not inspect any of the birds when he arrived at the facility on June 13th, and that he could not directly connect Rosenberg to any of the GPS trackers found on the trucks.

The prosecution then called Allison Howlett to the stand. She is, shockingly, their last witness. Despite disclosing a list of over a dozen witnesses, they are only calling three. She was the Safety and Security Manager at Perdue’s Petaluma Poultry in June 2023, responsible for keeping a safe working environment, environmental compliance, and the security of the facility. The prosecution started with many questions about her knowledge of DxE in general, DxE’s campaigns, and other DxE protests outside the slaughterhouse, down to the level of detail of what signs have been held by activists. She then explained the basic security measures of the facility, such as doors with key cards, a fence along some of the perimeter, ‘No Trespassing’ signs, and 24/7 security. 

Howlett testified that she became aware of an unauthorized entry in the early morning of June 13th, and then began conducting an investigation that involved reviewing old security camera footage, which is when she found earlier unauthorized entries in April, May, and June. She kept a spreadsheet of the security footage and a lot of her testimony involved reviewing security camera footage and describing it, including how the footage showed people taking photos of documents and the offal area. It’s interesting that in all the prosecution’s testimony, the witnesses seem incredibly hesitant to use words that describe what is actually happening - they say processing instead of slaughter, material not for human consumption instead of organs and body parts.

Howlett also testified about finding GPS trackers on Petaluma Poultry’s transport trucks during the course of her investigation. She then testified about the financial impact the event on the 13th had on the company. She stated that production was stalled on the 13th and then postponed to the following Saturday, which meant employees had to come in on an unscheduled day. 

The day ended with a 402 hearing outside of the presence of the jury on the financial records that Howlett compiled showing the costs incurred by Petaluma Poultry. Judge Gnoss ruled that Howlett can testify to the costs from the 13th and the following Saturday, but nothing else. Howlett’s testimony will continue tomorrow.

Friday, October 10th

Howlett’s testimony continued today. She testified about her estimate of the monetary losses incurred by Perdue as a result of the event on June 13th, and then Carraway began his cross-examination. On cross-examination, Howlett testified that she wasn’t personally there during the June 13th event, didn’t directly identify people herself from the surveillance video, and did not know who placed the trackers on the truck. She also testified about viewing hidden camera footage of the slaughterhouse showing birds flailing about after coming out of the stunning area, but claimed she couldn’t confirm the video came from Petaluma Poultry despite previously reporting to the Petaluma Police Department that the video was from their ‘live hanging’ room and that she found a hole in the wall where the camera would have been placed. After a brief re-direct from Mills and re-cross from Carraway, Howlett was excused. The prosecution then rested their case, meaning they are done. The jury was excused and told to return on Monday afternoon.

With the jury gone, the defense then made a motion for a judgment of acquittal, which means they asked Judge Gnoss to dismiss the charges because the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence for any reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense also moved to strike some of the aggravating factors, which could lead to a harsher sentence. After researching over the lunch break, Judge Gnoss denied the motion for judgment of acquittal but did strike one aggravating factor, which was about whether the defendant “induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission.”

The court session ended with a discussion about the order of defense’s witnesses. The prosecution vigorously argued that Rosenberg should be required to testify first in order to lay the foundation for the testimony of others, among other reasons. After a lengthy back and forth, Judge Gnoss ruled that Rosenberg would not have to testify before others, but that Dr. Rosenberg would not be able to testify about statements made to her by Rosenberg or Deerbrook until after they testified.

Trial will resume on Monday afternoon with the defense presenting their case.

‍

‍