A reopened criminal investigation at Cornell University has revived a case defined by two sharply different accounts: a former student’s lawsuit alleging a drug-fueled gang rape, and prosecutors’ contention that her earlier statement described consensual conduct.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says the discrepancy—not simply the difficulty of proving the case—prompted the original decision not to bring charges. He said the November 2024 statement described the woman’s drug use and sexual conduct as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.”¹ His office is now reviewing the allegations in the civil complaint and plans to present any potential charges to a grand jury.

The lawsuit offers a substantially different narrative. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time, says she was intoxicated, pressured into taking what she believed was ketamine and assaulted for hours at the Chi Phi fraternity house. Her attorney, Thomas Giuffra, says she was traumatized and operating in “self preservation mode,” arguing that investigators never conducted the follow-up expected in a serious sexual-assault case.¹

Both sides agree that the case was reported to Cornell police and that the university conducted a Title IX proceeding. They diverge over what that process established. Cornell says a hearing panel reviewed evidence over multiple days and imposed sanctions including expulsions and suspensions; the fraternity chapter was closed and remains barred from campus.² Giuffra, by contrast, has argued that the consequences were inadequate and that no defendant was arrested.

Newly publicized messages from the fraternity’s Snapchat group—including “Shop still open?” followed by “Yea.”—have intensified scrutiny, though Van Houten has said the messages do not resolve the legal question of consent.³ Defense attorneys deny the allegations and urge that the seven named defendants be judged on evidence rather than publicity. One lawyer called the reopening an opportunity to test the claims, while expressing confidence that it will again end with no charges.⁴ The grand jury will now determine whether the competing accounts and newly presented evidence warrant criminal prosecution.