Reopened Investigation in Alleged Rape Case at Cornell University

New York prosecutors are reopening an investigation into an alleged rape case from 2024 involving Cornell University students. The reopening follows a lawsuit filed by the alleged victim, referred to as Jane Doe, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Jane Doe claims that multiple men drugged and raped her at a Cornell fraternity house in October 2024. In a recent statement, Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten detailed efforts to reassess the case. His office is reviewing potential charges and will present the case to a grand jury once ready. A senior prosecutor specializing in sex crimes has been assigned to lead preparations.

Cornell University responded to the news that the case is being revisited. The university expressed support for the decision and defended its actions from two years prior. Kyle Kimball, vice president for university relations at Cornell, stated that a comprehensive Title IX investigation took place, lasting several months. Although no criminal charges were filed, a university panel heard evidence over multiple days, resulting in expulsions and suspensions. The statement did not specify which individuals received these consequences. Kimball clarified, “Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false.” The Xi chapter of Chi Phi fraternity, linked to the alleged assailants, was banned from the campus following these events.

The case gained significant attention on social media after Doe’s lawsuit, prompting public scrutiny. Van Houten noted that his office received numerous calls demanding explanations and expressing anger. He commented on the civil lawsuit’s claims, highlighting discrepancies from Doe’s sworn statement in 2024, which described her actions as voluntary. Van Houten emphasized, “Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.” He further explained that the prior decision could not be based on the allegations from a civil lawsuit filed almost two years later.

Van Houten also mentioned that his office had not been contacted by Doe’s attorneys regarding the contradiction in statements. He has reached out to them to clarify these differences.