Newly disclosed law enforcement documents show that local prosecutors in New York decided against pursuing criminal charges in an alleged fraternity gang rape at Cornell University without reviewing witness interviews, digital evidence, or anonymous tips gathered by campus police. The revelation has drawn sharp criticism from state officials and legal representatives, prompting New York Governor Kathy Hochul to intervene and assign a special prosecutor to reassess the matter.
The investigation stems from an incident reported by a 20-year-old student, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, who alleges she was sexually assaulted over several hours while incapacitated by ketamine, alcohol, and marijuana during an event at the Chi Phi fraternity house between October 19 and October 20, 2024. According to campus police records, investigators interviewed multiple witnesses and received anonymous leads shortly after the report was made. However, those materials were never formally reviewed by the local district attorney’s office prior to closing the criminal file.
Prosecutor Relied Entirely on Accuser’s Initial Statement
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten confirmed that his office based its decision not to file criminal charges strictly on Jane Doe’s initial six-page written statement to police. Records indicate that on November 25, 2024, a Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) investigator reached out to the District Attorney’s Office to report on witness interviews and investigative progress. An investigator within the DA’s office replied that multiple prosecutors had reviewed the initial statement and collectively agreed no criminal charges were warranted.
Defending the decision, Van Houten stated that the victim’s initial statement did not allege facts constituting criminal conduct under the law. When questioned regarding the additional investigative materials gathered by campus officers, Van Houten maintained there was “nothing to review,” asserting that fraternity members identified in the police inquiries had invoked their legal right to remain silent under the advice of counsel.
“In what world does the district attorney not even interview her or anyone else involved, or even request the full transcript?” — New York Governor Kathy Hochul
Police records also indicate that campus investigators obtained a portion of a Snapchat discussion provided by a witness, in which a fraternity member referred to an ongoing encounter in an alumni room inside the house. Van Houten minimized the relevance of the submission, noting it was supplied by a witness rather than extracted directly from Snapchat by CUPD at that time.
Unbeknownst to prosecutors, CUPD subsequently submitted a formal data request to Snapchat on November 26, 2024. On December 23, 2024, platform administrators returned 1,665 data items linked to five accounts. Following a review of those files, campus police identified three posts referencing Jane Doe or the evening in question, concluding that none exhibited criminal activity and taking no further action.
Unexplained Delays and Medical Response Oversight
The handling of the case extended beyond evidentiary reviews, revealing significant communication gaps between law enforcement and the victim. Although local prosecutors reached their determination not to pursue charges on November 25, 2024, campus police did not notify Jane Doe of the decision until January 21, 2025—nearly two months later. Van Houten noted that his office played no role in the timeline of informing the complainant.
Jane Doe’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, expressed dismay upon learning of the two-month notification gap, emphasizing that his client remained under the impression that an active criminal investigation was underway throughout that timeframe. Giuffra highlighted that prosecutors never interviewed Jane Doe directly at any point during their review.
Missed Forensic Opportunities
The timeline of medical care immediately following the incident has also drawn scrutiny from legal counsel. Shortly after the alleged assault, Jane Doe visited the university health center seeking treatment for a severe urinary tract infection, which she described as having a traumatic origin. Health center staff did not offer or perform a sexual assault evidence collection kit at that time.
It was not until November 7, 2024—approximately two weeks after the event—that Jane Doe underwent a formal sexual assault examination and forensic evidence collection process. Giuffra characterized the failure of medical staff to offer immediate forensic options or refer the victim to an off-campus medical facility within 48 hours as a critical failure that compromised potential DNA evidence recovery.
State Intervention and Civil Proceedings
The procedural lapses highlighted in police documents prompted direct action from state leadership. Governor Kathy Hochul announced the official appointment of New York Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor to re-examine the case, determine whether proper legal procedures were followed, and decide if criminal charges should be brought against the individuals involved.
The criminal review unfolds alongside civil legal action. Jane Doe recently filed a civil lawsuit against Cornell University alongside seven individual Chi Phi fraternity brothers, alleging severe sexual assault and institutional negligence. As Attorney General James assumes control of the criminal inquiry, legal advocates continue to emphasize the importance of thorough evidence evaluation in sexual misconduct allegations on college campuses.
If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault, confidential support is available 24/7 through the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673 or online at rainn.org.