On February 8, 2022, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, one of Pennsylvania’s two appellate courts, issued an opinion largely siding with Animal Outlook in its Martin Farms appeal. The appeal stemmed from a lower court’s February 2021 dismissal of Animal Outlook’s private criminal complaint alleging animal cruelty, aggravated cruelty, and neglect against Martin Farms and more than a dozen employees, after the District Attorney’s office refused to prosecute. The complaint was based on Animal Outlook’s 2018 undercover investigation, which led Animal Outlook to present to the Pennsylvania State Police and the District Attorney’s office a list of 327 incidents it determined to be violations of Pennsylvania’s criminal protection laws, many of which were captured on video.

In a 28-page opinion, the Superior Court recounted the lengthy factual history of the case, analyzed our arguments alleging the trial court had committed legal error, and ultimately concluded that Animal Outlook had demonstrated sufficient evidence of neglect and cruelty as it relates to Martin Farms’ handling of downed cows, excessive shocking and tail pulling, and disbudding of calves. The Court further held that Martin Farms’ conduct associated with these practices was not exempted from prosecution under Pennsylvania’s “normal agricultural operation” exemption.

The Superior Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of Animal Outlook’s private criminal complaint as it relates to these incidents. The Superior Court then directed the lower court to order the prosecutor to accept Animal Outlook’s complaint and initiate prosecution for these incidents documented during our investigation.

We have never had any doubt that the cruelty and neglect revealed by our investigation is squarely within the scope of the conduct prohibited by Pennsylvania law and have long believed that if we were given access to fair and thorough process under the law, this cruelty would be recognized. We’re grateful that the Superior Court did just that here, thoughtfully considering the weight of evidence from our undercover investigation that showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that Martin Farms’ conduct violated Pennsylvania’s animal protection laws. The Court’s ruling that even so-called standard practices such as disbudding vulnerable calves with hot irons and without pain medication are not immune from prosecution sends a clear message that animals used in agriculture are worthy of protection.

Animal Outlook was assisted in the appeal by local counsel, Mays and Rotenberg

Following our investigation at Martin Farms, Animal Outlook urged the Franklin County District Attorney to pursue criminal charges against the farm and employees involved. Despite Animal Outlook’s full cooperation, the District Attorney announced more than a year after the investigation that he would not pursue criminal charges. Animal Outlook’s legal team used a unique procedure in Pennsylvania law to file a private criminal complaint, which the District Attorney also declined. In September 2020, Animal Outlook petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to reverse the District Attorney’s decision. The court declined our petition. Unwilling to abandon the pursuit of justice for the suffering cows at Martin Farms, Animal Outlook has appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and is asking that court to overturn the Court of Common Pleas’ decision and require the District Attorney to institute criminal charges against Martin Farms and its employees. We have filed two briefs and are currently awaiting a schedule for oral argument before the Superior Court.

Working inside Martin Farms, a Pennsylvania dairy factory farm, Animal Outlook’s investigator documented senseless and violent abuse of mother cows and their defenseless calves. This is some of the worst abuse we’ve ever documented, yet it shows practices representative of life for animals on a typical dairy farm.