District Attorney Matthew Van Houten in Tompkins County, NY, announced on Monday that his office is reopening its investigation into gang rape allegations after a lawsuit against the accused men, the Chi Phi fraternity, the university, and others was filed on September 16.
In October 2024, the victim reported to campus security that she was sexually assaulted by seven students at the Chi Phi fraternity after she was pressured into snorting ketamine, smoking marijuana, and drinking alcohol. In November 2024, Cornell University had released a statement informing the campus community of an ongoing investigation into the allegations, stating that the Chi Phi, Xi Chapter was temporarily suspended for violating the Student Code of Conduct.
However in September 2026, the university released a statement stating that they had “investigated and adjudicated the allegations consistent with university policies”, while confirming that the Chi Phi fraternity still remains barred.
In the lawsuit, the victim, identified as “Jane Doe,” accuses the seven students of sexual assault, battery, and negligence. The complaint contains the details of the alleged assault, which the District Attorney has said does not match the initial report filed with the campus police.
The previous investigation, after the incident was reported, did not lead to the prosecution of any individuals accused. The District Attorney said that, in light of the complaint, new evidence has come forth that encourages a second look at the evidence. But the District Attorney’s office still defends its previous decision not to bring charges due to the facts present at the time not supporting a prosecution.
Van Houten and his office plan on presenting evidence, including Snapchat messages that were included in the lawsuit complaint, to a grand jury later this fall. A grand jury usually consists of 16-23 people who decide if there is enough evidence, otherwise known as probable cause, to formally charge a party with a crime. The bar for potential prosecution is exceptionally high in New York due to a combination of strict legal definitions on consent and intoxication, demanding evidence laws, and rigid statutory timelines.
If it is found that the plaintiff was voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, the law does not view that as an inability to consent.
Once the grand jury views the evidence, and if they agree that there is sufficient evidence, they can then issue a formal charge called an indictment, which allows the case to move to a criminal hearing. This decision does not mean that a person is guilty.