The Tompkins County district attorney has announced plans to revisit a sexual assault case involving a former Cornell University student after new evidence came to light. Matthew Van Houten, who declined to pursue charges in 2024, said he intends to meet with the woman, identified as Jane Doe, as soon as possible to discuss the new information.
In 2024, Jane Doe reported to local police that she had been sexually assaulted by multiple men at the Chi Phi fraternity house while she was a 20-year-old undergraduate. Although Mr. Van Houten described her account as credible, detailed, and morally reprehensible, he concluded at the time that the allegations did not meet the threshold for criminal charges under New York state law. Specifically, prosecutors and retired officers who reviewed the case agreed that the evidence did not support a crime, citing the state’s legal distinctions regarding voluntary intoxication and mental incapacitation.
“If the report had shown she was drugged and unconscious, these men would be in prison,” Mr. Van Houten said, but noted that the facts in the original statement did not substantiate such claims. The decision not to prosecute sparked significant public debate, with many questioning whether the case was adequately investigated.
The renewed scrutiny intensified after Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit last month against Cornell University, seven men, a fraternity, and her sorority, alleging she was given alcohol and drugs and subsequently raped on October 19, 2024. This legal action has drawn attention from campus activists, politicians, and media outlets, fueling discussions about sexual assault on college campuses and the handling of such cases by law enforcement.
Mr. Van Houten acknowledged that while the lawsuit presented new allegations, it did not immediately provide facts sufficient for a criminal case. Nevertheless, he said the recent submission of new evidence prompted him to reevaluate the matter and consider whether it merits presentation to a grand jury.
The district attorney’s office also faced criticism over the investigative process, including the fact that Jane Doe was never interviewed by prosecutors during the initial review, and confusion regarding whether a fraternity Snapchat message thread had been examined. Mr. Van Houten clarified that his office did review the messages at the time but admitted to a prior misstatement on the issue.
Thomas Giuffra, the attorney representing Jane Doe, expressed skepticism about the district attorney’s intentions. While he said he would cooperate with any renewed inquiry, he questioned whether the office would conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.
Mr. Van Houten emphasized that his office relies on information compiled by the police department and does not conduct independent investigations. He noted that with a small staff of nine lawyers, his role is to evaluate evidence presented by investigators and apply the law accordingly, independent of public sentiment or social media pressure.
The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement in addressing sexual assault allegations on college campuses, balancing legal standards with community expectations for justice and transparency.