Prosecutor Reopens Cornell Gang Rape Investigation After Accuser Files Lawsuit

A New York prosecutor has reopened a criminal investigation into allegations that a former Cornell University student was sexually assaulted by members of the Chi Phi fraternity in 2024, following a civil lawsuit filed by the woman earlier this month.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said his office intends to present evidence to a grand jury as it reconsiders whether criminal charges should be brought against seven fraternity members named in the lawsuit.

The woman, identified in the civil lawsuit as Jane Doe, alleges that she was sexually assaulted at the Cornell fraternity house in October 2024 after being given alcohol and drugs. According to the lawsuit, she was 20 years old at the time and alleges that fraternity members pressured her to take ketamine and consume other substances before the alleged assaults.

The lawsuit, filed on September 16, names seven former or current Chi Phi members as defendants, along with Cornell University, the fraternity and an Ithaca bar, among others. She is seeking unspecified damages. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Van Houten said his decision not to pursue criminal charges in 2024 was based on the woman’s sworn statement to Cornell University police at the time. He said that statement described her drug use and sexual activity as voluntary and consensual and did not allege that she had been drugged against her will or gang raped.

The prosecutor said the allegations contained in the civil lawsuit differ significantly from the account given in the original statement and that his office could not have based its earlier decision on allegations that had not yet been made.

The woman’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, has disputed that characterization. He said the original police report was not materially different from the allegations now contained in the lawsuit and accused authorities of failing to conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation or follow up with his client.

Giuffra also said his client was not contacted by investigators from the district attorney’s office after reporting the alleged assault to Cornell police.

Van Houten acknowledged that his office did not independently investigate the allegations in 2024 and had relied on the Cornell Police investigation. He also said his office did not receive some evidence now included in the civil lawsuit, including a screenshot of a Snapchat group chat that the woman alleges involved members of the fraternity discussing the incident.

The prosecutor said that evidence will now be considered as part of the reopened investigation and potentially presented to the grand jury.

Cornell University said it supports the reopening of the criminal investigation. The university said it had previously conducted its own Title IX investigation, which is separate from a criminal proceeding, and that the process resulted in sanctions including expulsions and suspensions.

Cornell also said the Chi Phi chapter involved in the case was closed in 2024 and remains barred from campus. The university said federal privacy laws prevent it from publicly disclosing detailed disciplinary information about individual students.

The accused have disputed the allegations. Attorneys representing some of the defendants said their clients either deny the accusations or deny having participated in sexual activity or drug use described in the lawsuit. One defense attorney said allegations in a civil complaint should not be treated as proof of criminal wrongdoing.

The reopened investigation comes amid renewed public attention to the case following the filing of the lawsuit. Van Houten said his office received a large volume of calls, emails and other messages from members of the public demanding explanations about why criminal charges were not filed in 2024.

The next stage will involve prosecutors reviewing the new allegations and evidence before presenting the matter to a grand jury. A grand jury could ultimately decide whether there is sufficient evidence to indict any of the individuals named in the case.

The case highlights the distinction between university disciplinary proceedings and the criminal justice process. Cornell’s internal proceedings can result in academic or disciplinary sanctions, while criminal charges require prosecutors to establish sufficient evidence under the applicable criminal law.

For now, no criminal charges have been announced against the seven people named in the lawsuit, and the allegations remain subject to investigation and legal proceedings.