New York prosecutors reopen investigation into 2024 Cornell fraternity rape allegation
The Tompkins County district attorney's office is reexamining a 2024 sexual assault case at Cornell University after the alleged victim filed a civil lawsuit, while the university defends its prior Title IX handling.
New York prosecutors announced they are reopening a criminal investigation into an alleged rape that occurred in October 2024 at a Cornell University fraternity house. The move follows a lawsuit filed this month in the New York Supreme Court by a woman identified as Jane Doe, who accuses seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity of drugging and raping her for more than four hours.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said his office has assigned a senior prosecutor with sex-crime experience to review the case and determine whether charges should be presented to a grand jury. He noted that the civil complaint contains allegations that differ from the victim’s sworn statement submitted to the district attorney in November 2024.
"Jane Doe's sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual," Van Houten wrote.
Cornell University issued a statement supporting the decision to revisit the case while defending its earlier response. Vice president for university relations Kyle Kimball said the school conducted a multi-month Title IX investigation that included a hearing with a panel of faculty and staff, after which expulsions and suspensions were imposed, though the university did not specify which individuals were affected.
"Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false," Kimball said.
The Xi chapter of Chi Phi was banned from campus two years ago after the initial allegations emerged. Doe’s lawsuit also names the fraternity, Cornell University and other parties as defendants. Attorneys for the plaintiff have not responded to requests for comment.
Van Houten said his office has received both inquiries seeking answers and hostile messages since the lawsuit became public, and he has reached out to the plaintiff’s lawyers to clarify the discrepancies between the civil complaint and the earlier sworn statement.