New York prosecutors have reopened a criminal investigation into allegations that seven former and current Cornell University fraternity members sexually assaulted a 20-year-old student at a fraternity house in 2024, as new questions emerge about the original investigation and the disciplinary actions taken by the Ivy League university.
The woman, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit in September accusing seven members of Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity of sexually assaulting her during the early morning hours of October 20, 2024.
The lawsuit names Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar as defendants.
The allegations have not been proven in court. No criminal charges have been filed against the seven men, and some defendants have publicly denied wrongdoing.
According to the lawsuit, Doe was 20 years old and therefore under the legal drinking age when she arrived at Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity house after drinking earlier that evening. She alleges she was already heavily intoxicated before being given additional alcohol, marijuana and ketamine at the fraternity house.
The complaint alleges that what followed developed into a sexual assault involving multiple men over several hours.
According to the lawsuit, a message was sent at approximately 1:42 a.m. to a Snapchat group used by Chi Phi members crudely indicating that a woman was available for sex upstairs. Other fraternity members allegedly subsequently entered the room.
Doe alleges that she was too intoxicated to consent and that several men sexually assaulted her while others participated in or were present during portions of the incident. The complaint alleges the encounter continued until approximately 5:45 a.m., when she was completely incapacitated.
Three weeks later, on November 8, 2024, Doe reported the incident to Cornell University Police.
Cornell temporarily suspended the Chi Phi chapter and the seven students while the matter was investigated. The fraternity’s Cornell chapter was subsequently closed and remains barred from campus.
What Cornell Actually Did To The Seven Students
Early reporting on Doe’s lawsuit created widespread outrage over claims that some of the accused students were essentially allowed to write essays and return to school.
The complete disciplinary picture is more complicated.
Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff publicly clarified the results of the university’s Title IX process on September 29.
According to Kotlikoff, two of the seven students were expelled from Cornell.
Two others were suspended for at least two semesters.
One had already graduated before Cornell could impose disciplinary sanctions.
The remaining two were found not responsible for sexual misconduct.
Cornell has not publicly identified which individual received each sanction, citing federal student privacy requirements.
The university says its Title IX investigation lasted several months and ultimately went before a hearing panel composed of trained faculty and staff. Both Doe and the respondents were given opportunities to testify and present evidence during proceedings that stretched across multiple days.
The controversial essays were part of the process, but Cornell strongly disputes the characterization that writing an essay was the only punishment imposed on students found responsible.
Doe’s lawsuit alleges that the defendants were given opportunities to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays. Her attorney subsequently said that the five men who were not expelled received lesser consequences that included suspensions, workshops and essays.
Cornell says that description leaves out important facts.
“None of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement,” the university said while confirming that its disciplinary process resulted in both expulsions and suspensions.
The distinction is significant.
The final disposition described by Cornell is two expulsions, two suspensions lasting at least two semesters, one student beyond the university’s ability to discipline because he had already graduated and two findings of no responsibility for sexual misconduct.
Why There Were No Criminal Charges In 2024
The university disciplinary proceeding was separate from the criminal investigation.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says his office declined to pursue criminal charges in 2024 based on the information it received from Cornell University Police.
Van Houten has said Doe’s sworn statement at the time described her consumption of drugs and participation in sexual activity differently from the allegations contained in her 2026 civil lawsuit.
According to the district attorney, the 2024 statement available to his office did not allege that Doe had been drugged against her will or gang raped. Based on that record, prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.
Doe’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, has strongly challenged that characterization and questioned the thoroughness of the original investigation.
Now, newly reported information is raising additional questions about exactly what prosecutors were given.
CBS News obtained a transcript of Doe’s November 2024 interview with Cornell University Police. According to that transcript, Doe differentiated between sexual activity earlier in the evening that she described as consensual and what she says happened later.
While discussing the later events, Doe reportedly told the Cornell investigator:
“I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”
Van Houten told CBS News that his office never received the complete transcript containing that statement.
The district attorney said he first learned about the passage when CBS presented it to him this week.
That revelation could become one of the most consequential developments in the reopened investigation.
Van Houten said that if such a statement was omitted from material provided to prosecutors, the circumstances surrounding that omission need to be investigated by someone outside Cornell.
There are other disputed pieces of evidence.
Messages reportedly exchanged shortly after the incident show Doe and one defendant discussing having cloudy memories because of their intoxication. Doe reportedly wrote at the time that none of the sexual activity was illegal, while also suggesting any future encounter exclude the additional men and ketamine.
Her attorney says those messages reflected a traumatized young woman attempting to determine what had happened to her rather than a definitive assessment of whether she had been assaulted.
Attorneys representing at least some of the accused have pointed to Doe’s contemporaneous statements as evidence contradicting allegations in the lawsuit.
Kretzschmar’s attorney, Jeremy Saland, has categorically denied that his client sexually assaulted or even touched Doe and says the defense possesses evidence contradicting her allegations. Norris has also denied participating in sexual activity or drug use and said Cornell did not find him responsible for those allegations.
Criminal Case Reopened
The criminal investigation is now officially active again.
Van Houten announced that his office would reexamine the case following the filing of Doe’s civil lawsuit and the renewed attention surrounding the allegations.
The district attorney says prosecutors intend to present evidence to a Tompkins County grand jury and determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
Van Houten has said he hopes the grand jury process can begin within approximately 45 days.
The DA has also acknowledged that his office did not independently investigate the allegations in 2024 but instead relied upon the investigation conducted by Cornell University Police. He has said there is no indication that police interviewed all seven fraternity members now named as defendants in the civil lawsuit.
The newly surfaced police-interview transcript has added another layer to those questions.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has now called for outside counsel to conduct an independent review of Cornell’s handling of the allegations, including whether the university fulfilled its obligations in responding to Doe’s report.
Cornell, meanwhile, says it supports the district attorney’s decision to reopen the criminal investigation and maintains that its own Title IX process was thorough.
The university has also pushed back strongly against claims that it simply allowed students accused of serious sexual misconduct to write essays and continue with their education.
What happens next will occur outside Cornell’s disciplinary system.
Nearly two years after the alleged incident, prosecutors are preparing to place the evidence before a grand jury—this time potentially including evidence and interview material the district attorney says his office never saw when it initially decided not to pursue criminal charges.
