WATCH THE ENTIRE DRAMATIC DAY UNFOLD FROM THE MOMENT WORD OF A VERDICT CAME IN TO THE EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEFENDANT AFTER LEAVING COURT.
In a landmark verdict delivered on October 29, 2025, a Sonoma County jury found animal-rights activist Zoe Rosenberg guilty on all counts in the high-profile “Chicken Rescue” case. The 23-year-old UC Berkeley student and veteran animal rights campaigner was convicted of one felony conspiracy charge and three misdemeanors—two counts of trespassing and one count of vehicle tampering—stemming from her June 13, 2023, action at the Petaluma Poultry facility, a slaughterhouse operation affiliated with Perdue Farms.
The Incident
Rosenberg entered the Petaluma facility disguised as a worker and rescued four chickens she named Poppy, Ivy, Aster, and Azalea, broadcasting the rescue in collaboration with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). She contended that the birds were in extreme distress—covered in scratches and bruises, lethargic, and in need of urgent veterinary care—and said she acted out of moral necessity after authorities failed to intervene.
Prosecutors, however, painted a different picture, arguing that Rosenberg’s operation was unlawful, endangered food safety, and disrupted a legitimate business. They maintained that no emergency existed and that her motives, while perhaps sincere, did not justify breaking the law.
The Verdict and Its Significance
After approximately three and a half hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. Rosenberg now faces up to five years in prison, with sentencing scheduled for December 3, 2025.
The verdict marks a major legal defeat for animal-rights advocates and underscores the tightening legal constraints on open-rescue activism—a form of direct action in which activists enter industrial farms to document conditions and remove sick or dying animals. For organizations like DxE, the case underscores how difficult it remains to argue moral justification within a system that prioritizes property rights over animal welfare.
Defense vs. Prosecution
Rosenberg’s defense centered on the rescuer’s intent—that she believed her actions were legally and ethically justified to prevent unnecessary suffering. Her legal team sought to present a “necessity defense,” arguing that the chickens’ dire conditions required immediate intervention. The court, however, did not permit a full necessity argument, limiting the defense’s ability to frame the act as an emergency rescue.
Prosecutors emphasized the rule of law, insisting that Rosenberg’s motives did not negate the illegality of trespassing and theft. They described the action as an organized conspiracy designed to attract publicity rather than alleviate animal suffering.
Broader Impact and Activist Response
While Rosenberg lost the legal battle, she succeeded in achieving one of her main objectives—drawing global attention to the condition of chickens in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Major outlets including The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Guardian, and others covered the story extensively, sparking worldwide discussion about transparency, animal welfare, and the limits of lawful protest.
UnchainedTV provided live coverage of every day of the trial, streaming more than 26 hours of live reporting across multiple platforms, making it one of the most comprehensive independent broadcasts of an animal-rights trial in U.S. history. The coverage reached audiences globally and became a touchstone for activists seeking to elevate awareness through independent media.
A New Push for Transparency
The Rosenberg case has also ignited a new wave of advocacy for greater transparency within animal agriculture. UnchainedTV has announced a campaign calling for a California statewide referendum that would require live video cameras broadcasting to the public from all factory farms and slaughterhouses in the state.
The proposal, which aims to shine continuous light on the treatment of farmed animals, has already received endorsements from at least one California Assemblyman as well as DxE Co-Founder Wayne Hsiung. Supporters argue that the measure would give consumers the ability to see the reality of industrial farming for themselves—potentially ushering in a new era of accountability in food production.
Industry and Legal Implications
From the perspective of agribusiness leaders and prosecutors, the verdict serves as a warning that even morally motivated direct actions will be met with firm legal resistance. For them, the case reinforces the primacy of property rights and biosecurity in food production.
For activists, however, Rosenberg’s conviction is far from the end of the story. It is being heralded as a moral victory that exposes systemic cruelty and compels public dialogue about what “rescue” truly means when animals are treated as commodities. The case is also expected to influence future strategies within the animal-rights movement, including renewed efforts toward legislative reform and broader public education.
What Comes Next
Rosenberg’s sentencing in December will determine whether she faces prison time or a reduced penalty. Meanwhile, her legal team plans to appeal the conviction, potentially setting up a new stage for arguments over the moral and legal limits of rescue.
Regardless of the legal outcome, Zoe Rosenberg’s trial has already reshaped the conversation around animal welfare, factory-farming transparency, and the role of civil disobedience in the fight for animal rights. Through her conviction, she may have accomplished what she set out to do: force the world to look inside the walls of industrial farms—and not turn away.