Cornell Rape Case Reopened After Lawsuit Alleges University and Prosecutors Failed Survivor

New York state prosecutors have revived a criminal investigation into allegations of a gang rape at Cornell University after a former student filed a civil lawsuit accusing the Ivy League school and law enforcement authorities of mishandling her case. The decision to reopen the matter marks a significant turn in a controversy that has drawn widespread anger on social media and renewed scrutiny of how elite universities and local prosecutors respond to sexual assault claims.

The complainant, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, alleges she was drugged and raped by multiple men at the Chi Phi fraternity house in Ithaca, New York, in October 2024. She was 20 years old at the time. According to a 101-page lawsuit filed on September 16, Doe had been drinking at an off-campus bar before visiting a friend at the fraternity house. She claims two fraternity members propositioned her to sleep with both of them and then pressured her into taking ketamine and smoking marijuana.

The lawsuit alleges that Doe was subsequently raped by seven men over the course of roughly seven hours before she blacked out at about 5:45am. Because she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, the suit argues, she was incapable of giving consent. The complaint names seven men as defendants: Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar.

Doe reported the incident to Cornell University Police on November 8, 2024, but no criminal charges were filed at the time. The lawsuit also names Cornell, the Chi Phi fraternity, Doe's sorority Delta Delta Delta, and the off-campus bar as defendants, accusing them of breach of contract, negligence and violations of state law. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, though the filing does not specify an amount.

On Monday, Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten announced that his office would present the case to a grand jury, allowing citizens to decide whether charges are warranted. Van Houten acknowledged that when the assault was first reported, his office concluded the evidence from the complainant's initial statement did not meet the legal threshold to bring charges. He said the case would now be prosecuted "in the most objective and impartial means available – by testimony to the Tompkins County grand jury."

The district attorney's statement also noted that in Doe's initial November 2024 account, she did not allege she had been drugged against her will or gang-raped. According to Van Houten, her original statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as "voluntary, conscious and consensual." He emphasized that his office could not have based its 2024 decision on allegations contained in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later.

Doe's attorney, Thomas Giuffra, disputed the characterization of his client's initial cooperation, telling CBS News that she went to police because she believed she was the "victim of a crime." He said that aside from her first contact with Cornell Police, she was never contacted by investigators from the district attorney's office or by anyone trained in interviewing rape survivors. Giuffra also said Cornell expelled two fraternity members after an internal review but imposed lesser penalties on five others, including suspensions, workshops and essay assignments. "Not one of these guys was arrested. Not one. That I can tell you for a fact," he said, adding that Doe withdrew from the university after the ordeal.

The lawsuit includes screenshots of a Snapchat group chat among fraternity members in which one person crudely alerted others that they could sleep with the victim for "free." One message shown in the filing reads, "I f\*\*\*\*\*\* love Chi Phi." Kretzschmar, a then-fraternity member, allegedly sent two responses in the group but has denied involvement in the assault.

Kretzschmar's attorney, Jeremy Saland, told CBS News that the messages were inappropriate but did not constitute evidence of sexual assault. "This is a situation where there was an ugly Snapchat – ugly, period. … But that doesn't make my client a rapist, and it certainly doesn't make anyone a sex offender," Saland said. He added that Kretzschmar briefly entered the room where Doe was but did not touch her "in any way, shape or form" and left quickly. Regarding the ketamine allegation, Saland said his client took a hair follicle test that found no trace of the drug in his system, and that no one had contacted him about a renewed investigation. He said he hoped the case would be closed so his client could "live his life."

Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney representing Lopes, told CBS New York that his client "unequivocally denies the allegations against him." The other named defendants have not publicly commented in the source material.

Cornell University issued a statement on Monday supporting the district attorney's decision to have Doe's account heard by a grand jury. The university said it had conducted its own investigation over several months and referred the matter to a hearing where a panel of trained faculty and staff heard evidence from both Doe and the accused. The panel ultimately issued a range of sanctions, including expulsions and suspensions. Cornell disputed claims that punishments were minimal, stating that none of the individuals charged were offered essay writing as a sole consequence of their involvement. The university also noted that Chi Phi fraternity was closed in 2024 and remains barred from campus.

"Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false," Cornell's statement read. It warned that continuing what it called a "false narrative" of minimal consequences would make survivors feel less safe and supported and could perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault.

The reopened investigation comes amid heightened public attention to how colleges and prosecutors handle allegations of sexual violence. The case raises difficult questions about the collection and interpretation of evidence in cases involving alcohol and drugs, the role of university disciplinary panels versus criminal courts, and the barriers survivors face when reporting assaults. The grand jury process will determine whether the seven men named in the lawsuit will face criminal charges. For now, the case remains under review, with both the university and the district attorney facing intense public pressure to demonstrate accountability.