New York prosecutors are justifying their decision to refrain from filing charges in 2024 following ‘gang rape’ allegations at a Cornell University fraternity house.
Following the alleged incident on October 19, 2024, Cornell University suspended Chi Phi’s chapter from campus.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten characterized the allegations as “morally disturbing” while contending that the evidence available to him at that time did not provide sufficient grounds for legal action. However, according to the DA’s office, none of the individuals accused in the matter have been charged with any crimes.
Cornel ‘rape’ case: DA explains decision not to charge Cornell fraternity
Houten contended that Jane Doe’s 2024 account of the incident suggested her willingness to participate in the sexual activity. The District Attorney’s remarks came just one day following his office’s announcement that it would revisit the 2024 case after Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit claiming she was given drugs without consent, physically assaulted, and gang raped by seven members—both former and current—of Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity. He maintained that she failed to revoke her consent and noted that when she expressed concerns, the fraternity members “stopped and did not pursue what they were doing. “There is a disconnect in the sense of how the community and how social media has understood this to have happened. 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. Houten conceded that his office failed to review a photograph from the fraternity’s Snapchat group. “I’m not clear on exactly how that was given to us, or if anyone here looked at it.
Houten explained that his office faces limitations due to New York’s sexual assault and consent statutes, which set a demanding threshold for any possible prosecution.
“If what was said on social media about this case was true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now,” Houten stated to ABC News. “She clearly consented in the beginning, and there was never any indication that she changed that to the things that she participated in,” he mentioned. 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. However, he maintained that these messages, which were “disgusting and vulgar and immoral”, do not alter his perspective on the matter. “But the question that we analyzed was: Did Jane Doe consent to what happened, and was she unable to consent?” he continued. The issue was her consent, and if you take that Snapchat being vile and crude and vulgar, that did not have any relevance to the issue of whether Jane Doe consented to what was happening,” Houten said. Houten mentioned that his office intends to connect with Jane Doe to “establish rapport” ahead of her testimony to the grand jury later this year. He also noted that he’s asked for certain materials from Cornell’s Title IX investigation (via Jane Doe) and said that some fraternity members could potentially take the stand.
That was not critical to our analysis, as I mentioned earlier.
