Inadmissible, Rotten Chicken Proves Nothing:
Words to Live By.

In Butts v. ConAgra, No. 2:06-CV-1 (D. Vt., Jan. 9, 2009) a Vermont inmate incarcerated in a prison in Kentucky decided to buy some frozen chicken from the commissary. After he did so, he split the pieces evenly with two other inmates and heated his share in a microwave. As the inmate bit into his second piece, he felt a “pop” followed by some pus-like substance shooting into his mouth. After spitting the pieces out, he showed it to his cell mate who said that the inmate had just eaten “chicken intestines.” The inmate testified at trial that the substance appeared to contain “pieces of corn” and may have been a “grain pouch” or a “craw.”

While not an ornithologist, the inmate became violently ill, both vomiting and suffering from diarrhea (his name being “Butts” may have been a foreboding). The inmate placed the chicken parts in his “cooler” where they sat for three years until trial on his products liability suit against the defendant.

The rotten chicken bits were not in evidence at trial, though, due to chain of custody issues. The court held that the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict because, without the chicken having been tested and without any expert testimony about the condition of the chicken, the plaintiff had insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove that the chicken was defective or unreasonably dangerous. Tough cluck.