DA Defends Decision Not to Prosecute Alleged Cornell 'Gang Rape' Case

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten is defending his office's 2024 decision not to bring charges in an alleged "gang rape" at a Cornell University fraternity, citing the facts known at the time and New York State's laws on consent.

Van Houten described the allegations as "morally disturbing" but argued that the evidence did not support a prosecution. "If what was said on social media about this case was true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now," he told ABC News.

He stated that the accuser, identified as Jane Doe, appeared to have consented to the sexual activity and did not withdraw that consent. "She clearly consented in the beginning, and there was never any indication that she changed that to the things that she participated in," Van Houten said. "There is a disconnect in the sense of how the community and how social media has understood this to have happened. If at any point Jane Doe had said, ‘I don't consent to this anymore,’ or in those words, or in any form of communication. If there had been continued sexual activity, contact by these individuals, that would be a crime. But that's not what was alleged in her statement."

Van Houten acknowledged that his office did not examine a photo of the fraternity's Snapchat group, stating that even the "disgusting and vulgar and immoral" messages did not change his view of the case. He explained that the critical factor was Doe's consent and whether she was unable to consent, not the messages themselves.

The district attorney's comments follow his office's announcement that it would reopen the case in light of Doe's civil lawsuit. Doe alleges she was drugged, assaulted, and gang-raped by seven former and current members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell on Oct. 19, 2024. Cornell's Chi Phi chapter was subsequently barred from campus.

An attorney for Jane Doe, Thomas P. Giuffra, responded to Van Houten's statement, alleging that his client's claims were not thoroughly investigated. "It is challenging for me to understand how a thorough criminal investigation could have been conducted when she was never spoke with anyone other than the officer who took her original complaint," Giuffra said. He also expressed concern that critical evidence may have been lost due to the two-year delay in the investigation.

Van Houten stated that his office plans to meet with Doe to "establish a rapport" before she testifies before a grand jury this fall. He also indicated that his office requested documents from Cornell's Title IX investigation and suggested some fraternity members might testify.

He further explained that New York's laws on sexual assault and consent create a high bar for prosecution. "The law in New York State is clear that if you are voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs – such that your judgment is impaired — that does not legally, under the penal law, constitute your inability to consent," Van Houten said. "That's a very difficult concept, but it's a concept that I am constrained by when I apply the law to the case."

Cornell University issued a statement supporting the DA's decision to present the case to a grand jury. "Cornell also conducted a thorough Title IX investigation, which is separate from a criminal proceeding, over the course of several months," the university said. "During that investigation temporary suspensions and other restrictive measures were used. After investigation, and pursuant to federal law, the matter was sent to a hearing where a panel of trained faculty and staff heard evidence over multiple days. The complainant and respondents had the opportunity to testify and present evidence. At its conclusion, the hearing panel issued a range of sanctions, which included expulsions and suspensions from Cornell."

Doe's lawyers dispute Cornell's account, alleging that fraternity members were "afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell." The university denied this, calling it a "false narrative" that would make survivors feel less safe.

The fraternity was closed in 2024, according to the school.

An attorney for one of the defendants denied the allegations, stating that the incident detailed in the complaint "did not happen."