DA in Cornell rape investigation declined to review some evidence, including interviews
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.
A New York district attorney declined to review additional evidence gathered by Cornell University police before deciding not to pursue criminal charges in a gang rape investigation, according to newly obtained records.
The records, obtained by the New York Times, show that on November 25, 2024, a Cornell investigator told a member of the Tompkins County district attorney’s office that campus police had conducted additional interviews. Prosecutors did not ask to review the evidence and instead agreed that, based on a six-page statement from the former student known as Jane Doe, “criminal charges would not be pursued in this case.”
But before prosecutors declined to pursue charges, Cornell police had conducted interviews, reviewed messages, logged tips and contacted people connected to the case. The investigation continued through January 2025, but prosecutors did not review the additional evidence, a decision not previously reported, according to The Times.
The case stems from a civil lawsuit filed last month by Jane Doe, who alleges she was drugged and gang-raped by seven Chi Phi fraternity members in October 2024. All of the men have denied wrongdoing, and none has been charged.
A spokesperson for the Tompkins County D.A.’s Office pushed back on The Times’ report in a statement to The Independent Saturday, saying: “The ‘interviews’ being cited were essentially each of the seven suspects telling the police that they would not speak to them on the advice of counsel.”
The handling of the case is now under renewed scrutiny and criticism that has made national headlines. On Friday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul criticized Cornell police and the district attorney before appointing Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor with the authority to bring criminal charges.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten reportedly told The Times Thursday that additional records gathered by Cornell police were “not pertinent to our analysis because we had Jane Doe’s comprehensive account of the events.”
Van Houten has defended his decision not to prosecute, saying Jane Doe’s police statement “described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious and consensual.” The statement did not establish a crime under New York law, he claimed.
Former prosecutors and legal experts have questioned the decision to rely primarily on the campus police investigation.
“We would never rely on a campus police investigation,” Rick Trunfio, a former upstate New York sex crimes prosecutor and Syracuse University law professor, told The Times. “There are too many problems with that.”
Trunfio said the case should have been handled by a specialized police or prosecution team.
“You think Cornell University wants to report something like that?” he added.
A Cornell representative who speaks for campus police declined The Times’ request for comment, citing pending litigation.
The Independent has contacted Cornell for comment.
