Cornell University Rape Case Reopened by New York Prosecutors After Civil Lawsuit Alleges Fraternity Assault

New York state prosecutors announced Monday that they will reopen a criminal investigation into allegations that a woman was drugged and raped at a Cornell University fraternity house in 2024, a decision that follows the filing of a civil lawsuit and renewed public scrutiny of how both law enforcement and the university handled the case.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said his office will present evidence to a grand jury, the body that determines whether criminal charges are warranted. "Once we determine the appropriate charges, the case will be prosecuted in the most objective and impartial means possible," Van Houten said in a statement.

The development marks a significant reversal for a case that prosecutors had previously declined to pursue. According to Van Houten, his office concluded in the aftermath of the alleged assault that the evidence contained in the woman's initial statement to authorities did not meet the legal threshold required to bring charges.

The woman, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, filed her civil lawsuit on 16 September. In it, she alleges that on the night of 19 October 2024, seven men affiliated with Cornell's Chi Phi fraternity chapter assaulted her in an incident involving alcohol and the drug ketamine. She states that she was intoxicated and therefore incapable of giving consent.

Jane Doe says she reported the incident to Cornell University Police on 8 November 2024. Her lawsuit also includes what is described as an image from a Snapchat fraternity group chat, in which a participant alerted other members — in vulgar language — to the possibility of a sexual encounter with her.

Cornell University responded Monday by saying it supports the matter being brought before a grand jury, but pushed back firmly against the suggestion that it failed to act. "Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false," the university said in its statement.

The university said the matter had been referred to a panel of trained faculty and staff, which issued a range of sanctions that included expulsions and suspensions from Cornell. It specifically disputed Jane Doe's claim that the men involved were "afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays," stating that none of the individuals charged were offered the chance to write essays as the sole consequence of their involvement.

Van Houten's announcement included a detailed account of the discrepancy between Jane Doe's 2024 statement to campus police and the allegations later laid out in her civil suit. "Jane Doe's sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped," he said. "On the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

The district attorney also noted that Jane Doe's legal team had never contacted him to say her original statement was inaccurate or to ask him to reconsider his earlier decision not to press charges. He added, however, that he recognized "the reality that it can take years of therapy and healing for victims of sexual assaults to fully process and understand what happened to them."

Thomas Giuffra, Jane Doe's lawyer, offered a sharply different account of his client's state of mind in the days after the alleged attack. In a statement obtained by CBS, the BBC's US partner, he said: "In the days following the assault, she was traumatised, numb and unable to function or accept the horror of what had happened. She was in self-preservation mode."

Giuffra said his client never spoke to anyone other than the officer who took her initial complaint. He argued that standard investigative practice was not followed, saying he "would have expected at the very least that she would have been interviewed several times and evidence collected by law enforcement and a case developed." He added that the "defensive posture" evident in the district attorney's statements suggested officials recognized there had been failures and were attempting to excuse them.

The civil lawsuit further alleges that Cornell failed to protect Jane Doe and did not adequately punish the men involved. It states that she suffered "severe emotional and psychological distress and personal physical injury" as a result of both the incident and the university's handling of it, and that news of what happened spread quickly across the campus.

Cornell took public action in November 2024, issuing a statement about what it called "serious and deeply disturbing allegations of drug abuse and sexual violence at the Chi Phi fraternity house." At that time, the university said its campus police department was investigating, that it had suspended the local Chi Phi chapter along with "a number of students," and that it had opened both an internal investigation and a civil rights inquiry under Title IX — the federal law barring sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funding.

Jeremy Saland, an attorney representing one of the men named in the lawsuit, denied the allegations against his client. Saland acknowledged that his client "responded to and made an immature comment on Snapchat" but insisted he "did nothing else." He said his client was not involved in any sexual activity, did not touch the plaintiff in any way, and did not ingest ketamine.

The case has drawn national attention since the civil lawsuit was filed, particularly after prosecutors confirmed the criminal inquiry would be reopened. Several public figures, including actress Florence Pugh, have spoken out about the allegations, amplifying pressure on both the university and the district attorney's office.

Grand juries in the US legal system hear evidence and testimony before voting on whether charges are justified, a process that typically unfolds outside public view. The reopening therefore sets up a closely watched proceeding in which prosecutors will weigh the original statement given by Jane Doe against the more serious allegations contained in her civil complaint.