Court cases surrounding the seizure of animals from the Natural Bridge Zoo in December of 2023 continue to progress through the courts at the local, state and federal levels.
In the local criminal case, a motion has been filed by the attorney general’s office to try all five defendants – Debbie, Karl, and Sasha “Gretchen” Mogensen, Ashley Spencer, and Mark Easley – at the same time rather than holding five separate trials. In the motion, filed on March 17 and then refiled on March 19, Senior Assistant Attorney General Michelle Welch noted that the cases against all five defendants resulted from the same investigation and thus would involve many of the same witnesses.
Most of those witnesses do not live locally and will either be coming from other parts of Virginia or from out of state. Rather than having them make multiple trips to Rockbridge County, she argued it would be more convenient to hold a single trial for all five defendants. A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for June 17.
All five defendants were indicted by a Rockbridge County grand jury in February. Karl and Debbie Mogensen were each indicted on 18 counts of animal cruelty, while Gretchen Mogensen was indicted on 16 counts. Additionally, Debbie and Gretchen were each indicted on two counts of forgery of a public record.
Spencer, a former veterinarian with the Blue Ridge Animal Clinic, was indicted on four counts of forgery of a public record. Easley, the trainer for Asha the elephant, was indicted on three counts of animal cruelty connected to his treatment of Asha.
Spencer and the Mogensens have been arraigned on their charges and have pled not guilty. Easley, who lives in Missouri, will be arraigned on June 17.
On Appeal
At the state level, two cases related to the zoo are currently in the court of appeals.
The first, filed by Karl and Debbie Mogensen, is appealing the civil case that went through the Rockbridge County Circuit Court in March 2024, where the 71 of the 100 animals seized by the state were found to have been cruelly treated and turned over to the state.
Aaron Cook, the Mogensens attorney, argued the case before a three-judge panel last October, arguing that the circuit court had erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the seizure of the animals being a violation of the Mogensens’ fourth amendment rights, that the court had erred by not allowing Gretchen Mogensen to testify after being “inadvertently” left off of the defense’s witness list, and that the Mogensens were exempt from the statute under which the animals were seized due to being exhibitors of the animals and not the direct owners. The court of appeals issued a ruling in January affirming the jury’s verdicts and upholding the circuit court rulings.
On Feb. 7, Cook filed an en banc motion to reargue the case before the entire panel of judges, arguing that the three-judge panel had erred in holding that the exclusionary rule regarding illegally seized evidence doesn’t apply in this case and by holding that the exhibitor exemption does not apply. On Feb. 27, the motion for the en banc hearing was denied.
In the interim, Cook withdrew as counsel for the Mogensens and was replaced by Mario Williams, who was their attorney through the initial hearing in Rockbridge County General District Court. Williams filed notice to appeal the case to the Virginia Supreme Court on April 30. -The other case going through the court of appeals stems from a charge of failing to comply with a court order filed against Gretchen Mogensen from an incident in April of last year where she was not at the zoo when inspectors from the attorney general’s office arrived to check on the giraffes being held there.
When talking to Amy Taylor, an investigator with the Attorney General’s office, on the phone on April 7, Mogensen said she was not at the zoo but would be there later that day. When she didn’t arrive, Taylor called her back, at which point Mogensen said she wouldn’t be there at all that day. When Taylor, the veterinarian and the state troopers who were escorting them returned the next morning and attempted to contact Mogensen, she again said she wasn’t at the zoo and would be there later. More than two hours later, Mogensen arrived and let the inspectors in.
Upon entering the zoo to inspect the three female giraffes at the zoo that day – which, along with a male giraffe that had been transported from the zoo the previous October, were among the animals awarded to the state in the 2024 trial – it was discovered that two of the giraffes that had previously been pregnant had given birth. The calves were not at the zoo and their whereabouts remains unknown.
After being found guilty of violating the court order on Sept. 24, 2025, Mogensen was given five weeks to inform the state where the baby giraffes were or to report to the Rockbridge Regional Jail to serve a 100-day sentence. Mogensen and her attorneys appealed the ruling to the court of appeals, which denied a stay of the sentence pending the appeal. Mogensen reported to the jail as ordered on Oct. 29 and was released on Feb. 6, the same day the grand jury indicted her on the criminal charges. At the September hearing, Judge Christopher Russell acknowledged that no direct evidence that Mogensen had been involved in moving the calves from the zoo had been presented, but ruled that, as the owner of the zoo, responsibility for their whereabouts – and for reporting their birth to the state – fell to her.
Anthony Anderson, Mogensen’s attorney, filed a brief for the appeal of the ruling on Jan. 26. He argued that the circuit court erred by holding Mogensen in contempt because the September 2024 court order “did not contain any command or prohibition regarding ownership, custody, or handling of any giraffe calves,” further noting that the court had “expressly declined to rule on the giraffe calf ownership or impose obligations related to calves in connection with the order.”
He further argued that the evidence presented at the Sept. 24 trial was “insufficient as a matter of law to show that [Mogensen] had violated any specific provision” of the court order and that there was insufficient evidence that Mogensen had “willfully and intentionally disobeyed the circuit court’s order with respect to random inspections.”
On Feb. 25, Assistant Attorney General Kelci Block, who served as co-counsel for the state with Welch, filed a brief responding to Anderson’s arguments.
In it, she argued that Mogensen “was well aware that she had no right to move and conceal the giraffe calves,” having been in the room for the hearing on the court orders in question. While Block acknowledged that the September 2024 order doesn’t “expressly mention giraffe calves,” she argues that the order directed parties to determine if the giraffes were in fact pregnant, but “only for the purposes of determining a transportation plan.”
At a subsequent hearing on Oct. 2, the court ruled that Karl and Debbie Mogensen had “no authority to demonstrate that they had a vested property right to the unborn giraffe calves.” Block noted that Gretchen Mogensen was in the courtroom for both the Sept. 5 and Oct. 2 hearings, and that she had “agreed to notify the [attorney general’s office] of the calves’ birth.”
She argued that the evidence presented by Welch at the hearing last September was sufficient to convict, noting that Mognesen didn’t present any evidence in her defense at trial or call any witnesses.
She and her attorneys proffered evidence related to the delay in letting inspectors into the zoo in April – which included documentation that indicated that Mogensen had a doctor appointment on April 7 which is why she was not at the zoo that day – but offered no evidence regarding the calves. At the trial, Anderson cited concerns over any evidence they might present being used against Mogensen in a separate criminal case in violation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Block further argued that moving giraffe calves from the zoo would have “required multiple people, a truck, a trailer, and specialized knowledge,” and that the giraffe barn and the surrounding area were covered by multiple surveillance cameras, which Mogensen had access to. She also noted that the gate to the zoo was opened with a button “that was mounted in Mogensen’s vehicle,” adding that “no reasonable person” could think that the calves had been removed from the zoo “without Mogensen’s knowledge and assistance.”
“Even in the unlikely case that the giraffe calves simply vanished one day or if they were stillborn or otherwise died, Mogensen would certainly know about it,” Block argued. “Her refusal to testify about the calves or to make any statements about them leads to the reasonable inference that her truthful testimony would be adverse to her case.”
As to Anderson’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to show that Mogensen had willfully violated the court order, Block argued that Mogensen did not make “efforts to accommodate the investigator’s request” at 5:30, noting that it was Mogensen who had proposed meeting at 5:30 and then “changed her mind and said she did not have to follow the September [2024] order.” Further, she argued, Mogensen “did not attempt to reschedule or explain her unavailability,” that afternoon and also refused access to the zoo the following morning “for unexplained reasons.” It was “only after multiple attorneys got involved,” Block argued, that Taylor and the other inspectors were granted access to the property, creating a delay of 20 hours.
Anderson filed a response brief on March 11 in which he addressed Block’s arguments regarding the Mogensen’s knowledge of the movement of the giraffe calves, citing Russell’s comments from the Sept. 24 hearing that there wasn’t any evidence that Mogensen “personally put … any giraffe offspring into a vehicle and drove them away.”
“Despite this absence of evidence, and despite the fact that at least three other individuals had access to the giraffe enclosure, the circuit court held appellant in civil contempt because the calves were missing,” Anderson argued. “This holding constitutes reversible error because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.”
He further argued that Block was relying on Mogensen’s “managerial role and her decision not to testify” when drawing the conclusion, not on any direct evidence, and her speculation that the calves could not have been taken from the zoo without Mogensen knowing about it “contradicts the circuit court’s ruling that [Mogensen] took no personal action with regard to the calves.”
On the other two points, Anderson reiterated his arguments that the health-related reason for Mogensen being unavailable on the afternoon of April 7 did not “warrant the imposition of a criminal contempt finding,” and that the Sept. 5, 2024 order did not apply to the calves.
The court will review all the briefs and either set a date for arguments or rule without hearing additional arguments.
In Federal Court
In addition to the cases in the Virginia court system, a federal lawsuit was filed on Dec. 6, 2025, by Williams on behalf of Karl, Debbie, and Gretchen Mogensen in the Western District Court of Virginia in Lynchburg.
Several individuals were listed as defendants in the suit, including Welch, Block, and Taylor “in [their] individual and official capacities.” Christine Boczar, a Powhatan County animal control officer who filed the warrants for the December 2023 seizure of animals and evidence from the zoo, and Rockbridge County Commonwealth’s Attorney Jared Moon were also named as defendants. Boczar was named a defendant in “her individual capacity,” while Moon was listed as a defendant in “his official capacity.” Additionally, the suit listed Rockbridge County as a defendant, along with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, the Virginia State Police, and the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force.
The filing alleges that Boczar “swore defective affidavits for unlawful warrants,” and that Welch, as the director of the Attorney General’s Animal Law Unit (ALU) “directed unlawful raids, seizures, and prosecutions.” Block and Taylor are being sued as members of the ALU, with the suit alleging that Block “supported unlawful impoundments and court proceedings,” and that Taylor “participated in raids and coerced compliance.” Moon is alleged to have “delegated authority to Welch and refused to investigate ALU misconduct.”
Rockbridge County was included in the suit as the municipal entity “responsible for prosecutorial oversight,” with the suit arguing that they “failed to ensure lawful operations.” The county is being sued under a Monell liability claim, a specific type of civil rights violation based on an official policy of a municipality rather than the actions of an individual. The concept stems from the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case Monell v. Department of Social Services.
The suit further alleges that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 13th and 14th amendment rights of one or more of the Mogensens were violated by the attorney general’s office throughout the case.
Gretchen, the suit alleges, had her First Amendment right to free speech violated when she was charged with contempt of court for comments made during a Facebook live stream when the male giraffe Jeffrey was moved from the zoo in October of 2024. The suit claims that Welch, Taylor, and the attorney general’s office “retaliated against” Mogensen, thus “chilling her expression.”
The suit also alleges that her 13th Amendment rights against “involuntary servitude and coerced labor” were violated by Welch, Taylor and the attorney general’s office “coercing [her] into providing giraffe care under legal threats.”
The suit further alleges that the Mogensens’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated by multiple defendants (all except Moon and the county) by the seizure of animals and evidence in December 2023 “via defective warrants and non-sworn personnel, lacking jurisdiction and particularity,” and that the Virginia State Police “coerced self-incriminating disclosures” from Gretchen Mogensen in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights.
The exclusion of Gretchen Mogensen’s testimony at the trial is cited as a violation of Karl and Debbie Mogensens’ Sixth Amendment rights, as is the alleged intimidation of one of the defense’s witnesses – Dr. Katie Clevenger, who the suit says was “only testifying to an appointment summary” – by Welch when she advised that Dr. Clevenger “be advised of her Fifth Amendment rights, implying that her testimony could be incriminating.”
The suit requests that the Mogensens be awarded compensation “for financial losses, reputational harm, and emotional distress caused by the defendants’ actions,” as well as punitive damages “against individual defendants for willful and malicious misconduct,” but does not include amounts for either request. The Mogensens also request “injunctive relief to enjoin further unconstitutional actions, including speech restrictions and unlawful impoundments,” payment of attorney fees by the defendants and “other relief as the court deems just and proper.”
Since the suit was filed, several defendants have been removed from it. The Virginia Attorney General’s Office and the Virginia State Police were dismissed as parties in the suit on April 7, and the claims against Boczar were dismissed on May 1 after the plaintiffs failed to secure proof that she had been served as a defendant in the suit. The Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force had not been served as of May 5, but a motion granting the defendants more time to serve them was granted on April 8.
The remaining defendants – Moon, Block, Taylor, Welch, and Rockbridge County – have all filed motions to dismiss the case through their respective attorneys. Motions for Moon and the county were filed individually on March 23 and a collective motion for Block, Taylor and Welch was filed by their attorneys on May 4.
Kelly MacCluen, Moon’s attorney, argued in her motion that the Mogensens had not offered “anything more than labels and conclusions” in regards to Moon’s conduct and “barely, if at all, [offer] even a formulaic recitation of the elements of each of their claims.”
“From the complaint, it is impossible to determine to what extent, if at all, Defendant Moon is alleged to have been involved,” the motion argued. “Where each Defendants’ liability is personal and based on their individual conduct, Plaintiffs’ failure to specify the acts of Defendant Moon underlying this suit is fatal. The only specific allegations against Defendant Moon, that he delegated authority to Welch and refused to investigate ALU misconduct, do not state a cognizable claim under any legal theory. Plaintiffs do not provide any support showing that such a claim exists.”
In his motion on behalf of Rockbridge County, Jim Guynn argued that the complaint “fails to allege a basis” for a Monell liability claim because “a Commonwealth Attorney is not a policy maker for a county and the county cannot be held liable for the Commonwealth Attorney’s actions.” He cited a 1994 case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Keathley v. Vitale, in which the court dismissed a similar claim against the city of Virginia Beach.
