District attorney reopens case of alleged Cornell University ‘gang rape’

Tompkins County Prosecutors Revisit Cornell Fraternity Assault Allegations

Cyberzenhub.com – Authorities in central New York are taking another look at allegations involving a 2024 incident at a Cornell University fraternity after a recent civil lawsuit renewed public attention on the case.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said his office is reassessing whether criminal charges could be warranted. The review follows a lawsuit filed this month by a former Cornell student, identified as Jane Doe, who alleges she was drugged, sexually assaulted and gang raped by seven members of the university’s Chi Phi fraternity chapter.

The chapter was later prohibited from operating on campus. No criminal charges were filed against the people named in the allegations at the time of the original investigation.

Grand Jury Review Is Planned

Van Houten said prosecutors intend to bring the matter before a Tompkins County grand jury if Jane Doe cooperates with that process. The office is seeking to determine whether evidence now available could alter its earlier decision not to proceed.

“It’s our intention to present the case to the Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe’s cooperation,” Van Houten said. “We want to reexamine whether there’s additional evidence that we were not aware of in November of 2024, that exists now that would change our assessment of the case and would result in the grand jury finding that there was criminal conduct.”

A grand jury review does not itself mean charges will be filed. Prosecutors use grand juries to consider evidence and decide whether sufficient grounds exist for an indictment.

The district attorney said the claims detailed in the civil complaint differ substantially from the account initially provided to police two years earlier. In his description of that earlier statement, Van Houten said the woman had not alleged that drugs were administered without her knowledge, that she was forced to participate in sexual activity, or that she became physically helpless, unconscious or incapacitated while at the fraternity house.

“She never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house,” Van Houten said.

Dispute Over the Initial Investigation

Thomas P. Giuffra, the lawyer representing Jane Doe, challenged that characterization and criticized the response after his client contacted the Cornell University Police Department. He said a survivor of abuse should be interviewed by people with specialized experience and argued that his client did not receive that type of follow-up.

“In my experience, speaking with an abuse survivor requires delicacy, understanding and specialized training. An average University Police officer would not have these skills. It would be the role of a specially trained detective or district attorney. However, Ms. Doe was never contacted by anybody with those skills,” Giuffra said.

Van Houten acknowledged that his office relied on the Cornell police investigation and did not conduct a separate investigation into the allegations. He said that approach is consistent with practices used in many upstate New York counties.

The civil lawsuit also references a group chat that Jane Doe says involved fraternity members discussing the alleged incident. Van Houten said that material had not been supplied to his office during the earlier review. Giuffra called the messages essential evidence and said they were given to authorities in 2024.

“My client went to the Cornell University Police because a crime was committed. It was the obligation of the police to investigate the complaints. They were given the group chat inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client. This was a critical piece of evidence supporting that a crime had occurred. Despite this there was no follow-up with Ms. Doe either by the Cornell Police or the Tompkins County District Attorney,” Giuffra said.

University Response and Ongoing Civil Case

Cornell has said it treats accusations of sexual violence with the utmost seriousness. In a Sept. 21 statement, the university said its Office of Civil Rights and its Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards investigated and adjudicated the allegations under university policies.

The university said federal privacy requirements prevent it from disclosing details about individual students or any resulting discipline. It noted that violations of campus policies may lead to penalties ranging up to suspension or expulsion.

The civil action names the seven fraternity members as well as Cornell and other defendants. The allegations in a lawsuit have not been proven in court, and the reopening of a criminal inquiry does not determine the outcome of either the civil case or any potential prosecution.

The renewed review places focus on evidence gathering, communication between campus police and county prosecutors, and the distinction between a university disciplinary process and the criminal justice system. Cornell’s internal procedures may address whether student conduct violated campus rules, while a criminal case requires prosecutors to assess whether admissible evidence can establish an offense under New York law.

For the former student at the center of the case, the planned grand jury presentation could provide a new examination of allegations that previously did not lead to charges. For the defendants, any criminal allegation would remain subject to the presumption of innocence and the requirement that prosecutors prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt if charges are ultimately brought.