Prosecutors will take an alleged 2024 gang rape case involving Cornell fraternity members to a grand jury, with the accuser’s cooperation. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten reopened the case Sunday, September 27, after a civil lawsuit filed September 14 set off public outrage. He said his office wants to see whether there is evidence it did not have when it closed the case in November 2024.
Story Highlights
- Tompkins County prosecutors reopened the 2024 Cornell fraternity case and plan a grand jury review.
- No one has been charged. The accused deny the allegations.
- Cornell says its own Title IX process led to expulsions and suspensions, and the Chi Phi chapter remains barred from campus.
- The case shows how criminal and campus systems can reach different results before courts weigh in.
What Prosecutors Are Doing Now
“It’s our intention to present the case to the Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe’s cooperation,” Van Houten said. He added that prosecutors want to “reexamine whether there’s additional evidence that we were not aware of in November of 2024.” A grand jury review does not mean charges are filed. It means citizens will hear evidence and decide whether to indict.
The lawsuit alleges that a woman was drugged, assaulted and gang raped by seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity. The DA said a group chat included in the lawsuit was never given to his office. The woman’s lawyer disputes that and says prosecutors did have it. When the DA declined charges in 2024, he said her first statement did not say she was drugged without her knowledge or forced into any acts.
What Cornell Did Under Campus Rules
Cornell University said it supports the DA’s decision to let the case be heard by a criminal grand jury. The school said it ran a separate Title IX investigation over several months. A panel of faculty and staff heard evidence over multiple days and issued sanctions that included expulsions and suspensions. Cornell said none of the students were allowed to write essays as their only consequence. The fraternity chapter was closed in 2024 and remains barred from campus.
This split is common in campus sexual assault cases. Universities act under a lower burden of proof, while prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That gap can frustrate people across the spectrum. Some see schools as too soft or political. Others see prosecutors as slow or cautious. When the two systems reach different results, trust suffers on every side, for complainants and for accused students alike.
How The Defense Is Responding
The accused deny the allegations. One defense lawyer said his client “never sexually assaulted or even touched the plaintiff in any way.” Another of the accused acknowledged sending messages but said, “I did not participate in any sexual activity or drug use.” These are claims from the defense, not court findings. No one has been charged with a crime.
Public denials are common at this stage. The legal system presumes every accused person innocent unless proven guilty. A grand jury can indict only if there is enough evidence to believe a crime occurred and the accused likely committed it. If there is no indictment, the criminal case ends there. If there is one, the defense can challenge the state’s case in open court, where rules of evidence and cross-examination apply to both sides.
Why This Story Hits A National Nerve
Parents, students and taxpayers see a pattern they distrust. Key records can be missed early. Schools run closed processes with limited openness. Civil lawsuits bring new documents to the press. Then prosecutors reopen cases under public pressure. That sequence feeds a shared worry that powerful institutions protect themselves first. A grand jury review can help by putting the evidence on the record. Trust returns only if evidence drives the outcome, not headlines or campus politics.
What To Watch Next
Watch whether the district attorney presents the case and what charges, if any, are sought. Look for whether prosecutors bring the group chat and any medical records to the grand jury. Track whether Cornell shares more about its findings within privacy rules. Finally, note any court rulings that bring evidence into the open. Each step can either rebuild public trust or deepen the sense that closed systems answer more to image than to truth.
Sources:
abcnews.com, abcnews4.com, statements.cornell.edu, people.com
