{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Winston_Lee_Affirmation_LA_Mag_Watermarked","alternateName":"Winston_Lee_Affirmation_LA_Mag_Watermarked.pdf","caption":"Winston_Lee_Affirmation_LA_Mag_Watermarked","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/691/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-30T16:28:05+00:00","description":"Winston_Lee_Affirmation_LA_Mag_Watermarked","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"691","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/691/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/691/index.md"},"name":"Winston_Lee_Affirmation_LA_Mag_Watermarked","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nCOUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF TOMPKINS \n \n \nIn re Grand Jury  \n \n \nORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAFFIRMATION \nOF \nTENY \nROSE \nGERAGOS \nIN \nSUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RECUSE THE \nATTORNEY GENERAL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, \nFOR A HEARING AND DISCOVERY \n \n \n \n \n \nTeny R. Geragos \nMarc Agnifilo \nJacob Kaplan \nAGNIFILO INTRATER LLP \n140 Broadway, Ste. 4530  \nNew York, NY 10005 \n(646) 205-4350 \nteny@agilawgroup.com \n \nAttorneys for Winston Lee\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS 00... ecccecccscesessseseeecseeseceeeseesecaeesccnaeeceaesaeeeceaeeseeaeesesseeaeeaeeaecaeeaeeneeeees 3\nARGUMENT 1.0... cccccsssccssesscssesecseseeeceseesceseeseeseaecseesecsecsecaeeseesecaeesecaaesecsaecseeeceaeeseeaecsenaecaeeaeeaeeas 8\nA. The AG Must Be Disqualified Because She Has a Conflict of Interest ....0... eee eeeeeees 9\nB. The AG Must Be Disqualified for the Appearance of Impropriety ...........cecceceesseeeteeees 11\nC. The AG Has Violated a Host of Ethical Rules That Govern Attorney Conduct ............. 14\nD. The AG\u2019s Public Statements Have Prejudiced Any Future Grand Jury Proceedings....... 16\nE. This Court Should Hold a Hearing to Determine the Extent of the AG\u2019s Prejudice........ 17\nF, This Court Has the Power to Grant the Requested Relief... cece eccceesseeteceeteeeseeenseees 17\n\nCONCLUSION Wu. csecseesseeseecssesscesecssecssecsecssceseeesseescessceecesscesecsuecssecssesaeesesaesesscnascnaenaee 19\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nCOUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF TOMPKINS \n \n \nIn re Grand Jury  \n \n \nORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED \n \n \n \nSTATE OF NEW YORK \n) \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ss: \n \n \nTENY ROSE GERAGOS, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the courts of New \nYork State, affirms the following to be true under the penalty of perjury: \n1. \nI am an attorney and partner at Agnifilo Intrater LLP, a law firm located in New \nYork City, and I am an attorney for Winston Lee.  I make this affirmation in support of a motion \ndated October 8, 2026, seeking Orders (1) removing the New York State Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) \nfrom this investigation because of her conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety; (2) \npolling the impaneled grand jurors for their exposure to the AG\u2019s outrageous statements; and (3) \ngranting a hearing and discovery. \n2. \nThis affirmation is made upon information and belief. The basis for such \ninformation and the grounds for such belief are the statements from public officials and \ninformation provided to the public concerning the investigation into the allegations of sexual \nassault underlying this matter.  \nINTRODUCTION \n \n3. \nThe AG should be recused from investigating and prosecuting matters relating to \nan alleged sexual assault occurring in Tompkins County on October 19-20, 2024, for four reasons.  \nFirst, the circumstances surrounding the AG\u2019s appointment show that there is a conflict of interest.  \nSecond, the AG and the New York State Governor have together created a blatant appearance of \nimpropriety that, combined with the AG\u2019s ethical violations, should lead to the AG\u2019s recusal. Third,\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n-2- \n \nthe AG has made prejudicial extrajudicial statements in violation of the New York Rules of \nProfessional Conduct.  Fourth, the AG\u2019s public statements have prejudiced grand jurors because \nthe AG has already publicly prejudged the guilt of the subjects of this investigation.  In the \nalternative, this Court should hold a hearing to grant counsel discovery, including written \nstatements and testimony regarding the Governor\u2019s appointment of the AG in this matter.  \n4. \nJust 33 days before Election Day, in the midst of a fiercely contested gubernatorial \nrace in which her political opponent had repeatedly attacked her as soft on crime, the Governor \nwas handed a political windfall.  A plaintiff\u2019s attorney filed an unverified civil complaint against \nCornell University, a bar in Ithaca, a fraternity, a sorority, seven current or former students and \nothers\u2014including Mr. Lee.  In response, the Governor seized the filing as an opportunity to remove \nthe elected Tompkins County District Attorney who had examined the plaintiff\u2019s sworn statement \ntwo years earlier and determined no crime occurred.  In the District Attorney\u2019s place, the Governor \nappointed the New York State AG\u2014the same AG who just two days prior had prejudged the case \nand publicly condemned Cornell and the Tompkins County District Attorney and assured New \nYorkers that she, the AG, stood with the purported victim. By making these public statements, the \nAG conveyed clearly that she believed, despite not having examined a shred of evidence, that the \naccused were guilty.  Seeing the political advantage of giving the investigation to a prosecutor who \nis also facing re-election next month, and who had already made public statements prejudging the \noutcome, the Governor promptly removed the matter from the experienced and elected District \nAttorney and assigned it to the prosecutor who publicly stated she was standing with the \n\u201csurvivor.\u201d1  \n \n1 Absent a gubernatorial appointment, the AG has no general authority to prosecute ordinary \ncrimes including sexual assault.  The AG\u2019s original jurisdiction is limited to matters in which the \nLegislature has specifically conferred enforcement authority, including securities and business\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n-3- \n \n5. \nThis public political stunt by the Governor and the AG to make repeated public \nstatements, remove the case from the elected county prosecutor, and prejudge guilt in a criminal \ninvestigation for political advantage a month before election day is unethical and in violation of \nthe law.  The circumstances surrounding this appointment undermine the integrity of the grand \njury process and the due process rights of the investigation\u2019s subjects.  The AG is unquestionably \nbiased, as her own public statements show. Indeed, her blatant public bias is the reason the \nGovernor took this case from the elected county prosecutor and transferred prosecutorial power to \nher.  The public cannot, and should not, have any confidence in the investigation or charging \ndecisions of someone who has clearly prejudged the guilt of individuals who the law presumes are \ninnocent and has further sought to prejudice the grand jurors who may be called upon to evaluate \nthe evidence presented.  It is the height of unfairness that an uncharged person like Mr. Lee, \npresumed to be innocent, should be investigated by anyone\u2014much less the AG\u2014who has already \npublicly endorsed the purported victim and concluded the accused are guilty.   Finally, because the \nAG was selected by the Governor specifically because of her prejudicial public statements, she \nhas a conflict of interest because the Governor expects a particular outcome that she has agreed to \npursue.  The AG should be removed. \nSTATEMENT OF FACTS \n6. \nIn November of 2024, the Cornell University Police Department (\u201cCUPD\u201d) \ninformed the Tompkins County District Attorney\u2019s Office of a complaint and asked the District \nAttorney to review a female\u2019s (\u201cJane Doe\u201d) sworn statement \u201cto determine if her allegations \n \nfraud, consumer protection, Medicaid fraud, charitable organizations, civil rights, and certain \npublic-integrity offenses.  As the AG does not prosecute sexual assault offenses, that office does \nnot have any expertise in sexual assault investigations and prosecutions justifying any substantive \nreason for their appointment.  The Governor\u2019s appointment of the AG to supersede a local district \nattorney and prosecute an ordinary sexual-assault case appears to be unprecedented, or at minimum \nextraordinarily rare, in New York.\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n-4- \n \nconstituted a crime under New York law.\u201d  (Ex. 1, TCDA Statement at 2.)  After conducting an \nindependent investigation, which included review of Ms. Doe\u2019s six-page signed and sworn \nstatement with twenty different hand-written revisions made by Ms. Doe, and assuming the facts \nas true, the District Attorney confirmed that \u201ccriminal charges were not appropriate.\u201d  (Id. at 3.)  \nBased, in part, on Ms. Doe\u2019s own sworn statement, the District Attorney concluded that Ms. Doe\u2019s \nparticipation in drug use and sexual conduct was \u201cvoluntary, conscious, and consensual.\u201d  (Ex. 1 \nat 2.)  Despite the District Attorney\u2019s Office offering to speak to Ms. Doe, neither Ms. Doe nor her \nattorneys ever contacted the District Attorney to suggest that her signed sworn statement was in \nany way inaccurate.  (Id. at 3\u20134.) \n7. \nInstead, on September 16, 2026, two years after the District Attorney\u2019s conclusion \nthat a crime had not occurred, Ms. Doe retained civil counsel and filed a civil lawsuit seeking \nmonetary damages\u2014alleging conduct wholly different than the consensual conduct she swore to \nunder oath in November 2024.  (See Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc. et al, Index No. \n161704/2026, Doc. No. 1 (\u201cComplaint\u201d).)  Rather than describing the conduct as conscious and \nvoluntary, Ms. Doe now claimed she was \u201cdrugged against her will\u201d and that she was \u201cgang raped.\u201d  \n(Ex. 1 at 2; see also Complaint \u00b6 163.)  In addition to suing seven individuals (two of whom she \nknows never touched her), she sued their fraternity, her sorority, the bar where she apparently drank \nalcohol, Cornell University and others. \n8. \nFollowing the filing of the lawsuit, the \u201ccommunity\u201d asked the District Attorney to \n\u201crevisit the decision whether to pursue criminal charges against the seven fraternity members.\u201d  \n(Id. at 9.)  Accordingly, despite the \u201cdiscrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit\u2019s \nallegations,\u201d the District Attorney assigned a senior prosecutor with significant experience \ninvestigating sex crimes to investigate the matter.  (Id. at 9.)  He noted that, of course, reopening\n\n--- Page 7 ---\ncases such as this \u201cobviously works better when [] additional information comes directly from a\nwitness, his or her representative, or the police rather than through allegations set forth in a civil\nlawsuit, but getting to the truth is the goal in this case.\u201d (/d. at 8.)\n\n9. That same day, the AG having apparently reviewed no evidence\u2014decided to make\nposts on her X account and Facebook account. Her statement came a month before her reelection\nand served as the opening move in a coordinated effort with the Governor to seize the case for\npolitical fanfare. The AG\u2019s posts expressed views about the allegations and linked to a New York\nTimes article reporting the reopening of the investigation. The AG stated, \u201c[w]hat this young\nwoman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I\u2019m holding her in my heart and\nmy prayers. To her, and to all survivors: you\u2019re not alone. We stand with you.\u201d\n\n\u00ae NY AG James @ Br\n. @NewyYorkStateAG\nWhat this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and\nunacceptable. I\u2019m holding her in my heart and in my prayers.\nTo her, and to all survivors: you\u2019re not alone. We stand with you.\ngo Dy A ili }\nPus Sts tode |\nCornell Sexual Assault Investigation to Be Reopened \u201ca 1, = anion . ae\nFrom nytimes.com\n6:13 PM - Sep 28, 2026 - 624.9K Views\n\n10. \u2014_It is not a coincidence that the AG made these posts while \u201clinking\u201d to a story that\nthe Tompkins County District Attorney would re-open the investigation nor that the AG made these\nposts a month before election day. The AG wanted the world, and particularly the Governor, to\nsee that the AG was on Ms. Doe\u2019s side\u2014that she \u201cst[ood] with [her]\u201d and perhaps more importantly\n\n-5-\n\n\n--- Page 8 ---\n-6- \n \nthat the AG, like the Governor, was willing to make prejudicial extrajudicial statements.  Even in \nthe absence of evidence, and even without it being the AG\u2019s case, the AG was determined to make \npublic statements about an ongoing, recently opened criminal investigation to state to the world \nthat the woman was a \u201csurvivor\u201d and the uncharged subjects were guilty.  As of October 5, 2026, \nher X post has been viewed over 600,000 times.  Her words were a blatant calling card to the \nGovernor that the case should be taken from the elected county District Attorney and given to the \nAG.  After all, she had already decided that Ms. Doe was a \u201csurvivor,\u201d that she \u201chas been forced \nto endure\u201d things, and that the things the female \u201cendure[d]\u201d were \u201chorrific and unacceptable.\u201d  \nHow could the AG know whether the new allegations in the civil filing were true without speaking \nto Ms. Doe, conducting any investigation, reviewing any evidence, or making any inquiries \nwhatsoever? \n11. \nTwo days later, on October 1, the Governor\u201433 days before she would face the \nvoters\u2014decided to make a statement.  She said that newly released information raised \u201cserious \nquestions\u201d about both the CUPD investigation and the District Attorney\u2019s decision not to \nprosecute, and that it had \u201cundercut my faith, and the public\u2019s faith, in the District Attorney\u2019s ability \nto effectively investigate and prosecute the case.\u201d  (Ex. 2, Governor\u2019s 10/1/26 Press Release at 2.)  \nPurportedly so that the public could have faith in a completely unbiased and fair decision-making \nprocess, the Governor appointed the AG to re-open the investigation.  The Governor intoned, of \ncourse, that the matter would be handled \u201cwithout conflict or bias.\u201d (Id.) \n12. \nThe AG, for her part, issued her own press release and stated, \u201cevery New Yorker \ndeserves to know that when they report a crime, it will be investigated fully and fairly.\u201d  (Ex. 3, \nAG\u2019s 10/1/26 Press Release at 1.)\n\n--- Page 9 ---\n-7- \n \n13. \nTo amplify her message, the next day, on October 2, 2026, with her re-election now \n32 days away, the Governor held a press conference. Before the assembled cameras and \nmicrophones, the Governor made her own comments about the case and she invited the AG.  The \nGovernor made strong accusations against the CUPD that it failed to fairly and accurately report \nMs. Doe\u2019s statement to the District Attorney, specifically stating that \u201cshockingly those words \n[rape] never made it into the account that the Cornell Police sent to prosecutors.\u201d2  The Governor \nalso said Jane Doe had been \u201cfailed by people and institutions with an obligation to protect her.\u201d  \nThe Governor asked: \u201cIn what world would the police learn from a victim that she\u2019d been literally \ngang raped while she was intoxicated by five men in a fraternity house and not elevate those \nallegations to the District Attorney?\u201d  (Ex. 4, Transcript of 10/2/26 Press Conference at 2.)  She \ncontinued: \nThis young woman had already endured something that is utterly unspeakable and \nthat at every turn she was failed by people and institutions with an obligation to \nprotect her.[3]  When the Tompkins County District Attorney announced that he is \nreopening the case, he pointed to Jane Doe\u2019s statement and said it did not establish \nthat a crime had occurred.  But new reporting raises serious questions about the \ninformation his office relied upon when it made that decision.  That\u2019s why I believe \nthis case demands a special prosecutor who will provide a fresh and thorough \nreview of all the facts, including the information that has recently come to light.  \nAnd that is why I\u2019m invoking the power conferred to me as the governor of the state \nof New York to enlist Attorney James as an independent special prosecutor in this \ncase. She\u2019ll follow the facts.  She\u2019ll examine the evidence and go wherever it leads.  \nAnd if the evidence supports criminal charges, she will pursue them. \n \n(Id. at 2\u20133.)4 \n \n \n2 Notably, in the 6-page signed and sworn summary that contained 20 hand-written corrections \nmade by Ms. Doe, Ms. Doe herself never included that she was raped. \n \n3 This assertion is wholly inaccurate as Cornell University conducted a fulsome hearing, and the \nDistrict Attorney asked whether Jane Doe wanted to speak with his Office.  \n4 For a full video of the press conference, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfstUrpG_tQ.\n\n--- Page 10 ---\n-8- \n \n14. \nThe AG then told the room of reporters that \u201c[t]his is now an active criminal \ninvestigation.\u201d  \n15. \nThe very first question from a reporter asked the Governor and the AG about the \nAG\u2019s social media postings:  \nAttorney General, on your Facebook page three days ago, you wrote, \u201c[w]hat this \nyoung woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable.  I\u2019m holding \nher in my heart and my prayers.  To her, and to all survivors:  you\u2019re not alone.  We \nstand with you.\u201d  Why did you affirm her allegations as fact without doing your \nown factfinding investigation and to the governor, why did you appoint an official \nwho made a statement affirming those allegations as fact as someone who is \nsupposed to be doing an investigation? \n \n16. \nThe AG declined to \u201ccomment\u201d on her own posts.  Neither of our elected officials \nmentioned a word about the constitutional bedrock on which this country was founded: the \npresumption of innocence afforded to every individual accused of a crime. \n17. \nOf course, at the time the AG made these statements, she had not \u201cfollow[ed] the \nfacts\u201d nor \u201cexamine[d] the evidence\u201d as the Governor had said she would. She had merely assumed \nand prejudged guilt; the exact opposite of the duty of a prosecutor. \nARGUMENT \n18. \nA long time ago, Manhattan District Attorney Frank Hogan said, \u201cyou can\u2019t play \npolitics with people\u2019s lives.\u201d  The Governor and AG are doing exactly that.  The filing of the \nunverified civil complaint shortly before the contested New York gubernatorial and attorney \ngeneral elections has caused them to abandon their ethical principles as attorneys and elected \nofficials and become indifferent to the rights of the accused in criminal investigations.  Deciding \nthere is more political mileage in making condemning statements prejudicing the investigation\u2019s \nsubjects (as well as the prosecutors and police officers) than in following due process, the two have \nmade a public spectacle of what should be a solemn, serious, non-public process of commencing \na grand jury investigation that should have never been reopened in the first place.\n\n--- Page 11 ---\n-9- \n \n19. \nThe AG has already decided that Ms. Doe is a victim of sexual assault, and that the \nevents that took place on October 24, 2024, were not consensual, but rather \u201chorrific\u201d and \n\u201cunacceptable.\u201d  Without ever speaking to Ms. Doe and without reviewing any law enforcement \nmaterials,5 she already concluded that Ms. Doe was a \u201csurvivor\u201d\u2014meaning that one or more of \nthe purported assailants was guilty of sexual assault.  This is bias in its truest form and the opposite \nof a prosecutor\u2019s role to evaluate the facts honestly and fairly.  \n20. \nThe Governor removed a prosecutor who, in painstaking detail, reviewed Ms. Doe\u2019s \nstatement, applied it to the law, and concluded that no crime existed.  However, in response to \n\u201ccommunity\u201d activists insisting that he reopen his investigation, he agreed to.  This did not suit the \nGovernor.  In response, she hand-selected a special prosecutor with no expertise in sexual assault \ninvestigations, who had already decided guilt, had already decided the events of October 24 were \n\u201cunacceptable,\u201d and was biased in favor of a complainant.  The AG\u2019s conduct is a violation of the \nNew York Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association\u2019s Ethics, and her public \nstatements have so prejudiced any future grand jury proceedings that no quorum can fairly weigh \nthe evidence.  This Court must remove her for bias and the appearance of impropriety. \nA. \nThe AG Must Be Disqualified Because She Has a Conflict of Interest  \n \n21. \nAs noted, the AG made prejudicial public statements about this matter on the very \nday that the Tompkins County DA stated the investigation was being reopened because she wanted \nto take the case.  Her prejudicial statements reached the desired audience, the Governor.  They also \n \n5 It is unclear whether the AG reviewed Ms. Doe\u2019s initial sworn statement to police or her differing \naccount in her lawsuit, or whether she had read anything at all related to this case.  As noted, she \ndeclined to answer questions about her own Facebook posts.\n\n--- Page 12 ---\n-10- \n \nreached hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers.6  The AG then had a press conference alongside \nthe Governor where the Governor accused the CUPD of withholding critical evidence of guilt from \nthe District Attorney and accused the District Attorney of dereliction of duty for not sufficiently \ninvestigating the case.7  After leveling these serious accusations against these public servants, the \nGovernor stated, \u201cthis woman, this young woman had already endured something that was \nunspeakable,\u201d stating clearly that as a matter of fact this woman had been gang raped.  The \nGovernor could hardly have been clearer: this woman was gang raped, the young men who did it \nare guilty, and they escaped guilt because the CUPD withheld evidence and the Tompkins County \nDistrict Attorney refused to investigate.  The message to the world and to the AG was equally \nclear: investigate them, indict them, and convict them. \n22. \nNo doubt, the Governor, an experienced politician, stated that the AG would be \nindependent.  However, these are hollow, pretextual words after the same Governor had just \nimpugned an entire police department and a sitting, elected District Attorney.  There is no evidence \nthat CUPD withheld evidence or that the D.A. refused to investigate this case.  In fact, the evidence \nand logic support the opposite.  What has happened here is that these responsible law enforcement \nprofessionals came to a different conclusion than what is politically expedient to the Governor a \nmonth before an election.   \n \n6 Since September 17, the Cornell 7 matter has generated 41,583 media and online mentions, with \na potential audience of 79.5 billion impressions and an estimated publicity value of more than $927 \nmillion. \n \n7 The Tompkins County District Attorney\u2019s Office regularly prosecutes rape and other sex offenses \nand employs experienced sex-crimes prosecutors.  Indeed, before the Governor removed the office \nfrom this case, District Attorney Van Houten had assigned it to a senior prosecutor whom he \ndescribed as having \u201csignificant experience in prosecuting sex crimes,\u201d including jury trials \ninvolving sexual assaults of college students by other college students.  The same cannot be said \nabout the New York Attorney General.\n\n--- Page 13 ---\n-11- \n \n23. \nMoreover, the AG is not independent, as her public statements show, nor do she or \nher office possess any expertise in prosecuting sexual assault cases warranting the extraordinary \nreassignment and appointment to this case.  She solicited the Governor to be the Special Prosecutor \nthrough her prejudicial public statement about the case, and she understands that the Governor \nappointed her with a particular result in mind.  This is the very definition of a conflict of interest \nand is the basis for removal.  See People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 612 (2013) (noting that courts \nshould remove a public prosecutor \u2018\u201cto protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a \ndemonstrated conflict of interest\u2019\u201d (quoting Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55 \n(1983)); People v. Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d 390, 394 (1980) (\u201cIt would be simplistic therefore to think \nof the impact of a prosecutor\u2019s conflict of interest merely in terms of explicit instances of abuse. \nEven our thumbnail description of prosecutorial power is enough to indicate that resulting \nprejudice can at least as easily flow from an act of omission as from one of commission, from \ndiscretion withheld as from discretion exercised.  In this context, whether abuse is express or \nimplied may be difficult to determine.  Suffice it to say that any presumption of impartiality tends \nto be undermined when there is a clear conflict of interest.\u201d). \n  \nB. \nThe AG Must Be Disqualified for the Appearance of Impropriety \n \n24. \nAs the Court of Appeals has noted, a public prosecutor plays a vital role in the \ncriminal justice system because a prosecutor\u2019s \u201cmission is not so much to convict as it is to achieve \na just result\u201d:  \nCentral to the issue so sharply drawn is the pivotal point at which a public \nprosecutor stands in the criminal justice system.  Unlike other participants in the \ntraditional common-law adversarial process, whose more singular function is to \nprotect and advance the rights of one side, a District Attorney carries an additional \nand more sensitive burden.  It is not enough for him to be intent on the prosecution \nof his case.  Granted that his paramount obligation is to the public, he must never \nlose sight of the fact that a defendant, as an integral member of the body politic, is\n\n--- Page 14 ---\n-12- \n \nentitled to a full measure of fairness.  Put another way, his mission is not so much \nto convict as it is to achieve a just result. \n \nPeople v. Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d 390, 393 (1980). \n25. \nInstead of adhering to a public prosecutor\u2019s sacrosanct duty to pursue justice, the \nAG has made it abundantly clear that her mission is to bring criminal charges no matter what the \nevidence shows.  This unabashed bias has already prejudiced Mr. Lee in the media and, more \nimportantly, before potential grand jurors in Tompkins County. \n26. \nIn addition to her prejudicial conduct, the AG\u2019s actions have also created the \nappearance of impropriety.  The Court of Appeals has recognized that the appearance of \nimpropriety \u201citself is a ground for disqualification\u201d \u201cwhen the appearance is such as to \u2018discourage \n[ ] public confidence in our government and the system of law to which it is dedicated.\u2019\u201d  People \nv. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 612 (2013) (quoting Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d at 396).  The Court of Appeals \nfurther noted that, \u201c[i]n a case of that nature, \u2018[d]efendant[s], and indeed the public at large, are \nentitled to protection against the appearance of impropriety.\u2019\u201d  Adams, 20 N.Y.3d at 612\u201313 \n(quoting People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 421 (1980)); see also Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d at 396 (\u201cIt \nwas important that these responsibilities, carried out in the name of the State and under the color \nof the law, be conducted in a manner that fostered rather than discouraged public confidence in \nour government and the system of law to which it is dedicated.  This concern, that those occupying \nprosecutorial office be jealous of the evidences as well as the substance of integrity, was not to be \ndiscounted.\u201d). \n27. \nHere, the AG made gratuitous social media posts demonstrating that\u2014whether the \nevidence supported it or not\u2014she was going to turn this investigation into a criminal case.  The \nstatements are classic examples of a rush to judgment\u2014indeed, they do little other than \ndemonstrate that the AG has already decided what happened, without the inconvenience of an\n\n--- Page 15 ---\n-13- \n \nactual investigation.  These statements had the intended effect of signaling to the Governor that \nshe should appoint the AG as the special prosecutor during contested gubernatorial and attorney \ngeneral elections because the AG had already prejudged the case and was looking to indict.  These \nstatements have also reverberated through the public, creating the (accurate) impression that the \nGovernor appointed the AG specifically to turn this civil complaint into a criminal case and reverse \nthe decision of an elected prosecutor with sexual assault experience.  As the Wall Street Journal \nopined, the signal the Governor \u201cis sending couldn\u2019t be clearer and goes well beyond the usual \nefforts of a politician to please her constituents: There is only one acceptable outcome here, and I \nexpect Attorney General James to find it.\u201d8  And again, reporters highlighted the appearance of \nbias immediately during the Governor\u2019s press conference, questioning why the AG made public \nstatements prejudging the case and why the Governor endorsed the prejudicial statements by \nappointing the AG.  There are certainly cases where the only one claiming an appearance of \nimpropriety is a single lawyer.  In this case, however, it is being shouted from the rooftops by \n \n8 Dillon, Justin, \u201cCornell, Letitia James and the New York Ethics Code.\u201d Wall Street Journal (Oct. \n4, \n2026), \nhttps://www.wsj.com/opinion/cornell-letitia-james-and-the-new-york-ethics-code-\nc4f21354. This sentiment has been echoed by newspapers across the country. See Vennochi, Joan, \n\u201cThe Cornell rape case deserves a prosecutor with an open mind.\u201d Boston Globe (Oct. 5, 2026),  \nhttps://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/10/05/opinion/jane-doe-cornell-case-letitia-james/ \n(\u201cJane \nDoe\u2019s allegations of being drugged and raped at a Cornell University fraternity house deserve what \nNew York Governor Kathy Hochul said she was calling for: \u2018a special prosecutor who will provide \na fresh and thorough review of all the facts, including the information that has recently come to \nlight.\u2019 Attorney General Letitia James is not the right person for that job.\u201d); Doherty, Jennifer, \n\u201cNewly Appointed To Oversee the Cornell Rape Case, Letitia James Appears To Have Already \nDecided Who\u2019s Guilty.\u201d The Sun (Oct. 2, 2026) https://www.nysun.com/article/newly-appointed-\nto-oversee-the-cornell-rape-case-letitia-james-appears-to-have-already-decided-whos-guilty; Post \nEditorial Board, \u201cKathy Hochul, Tish James rush to exploit \u2018Cornell 7\u2019 \u2014 justice be damned.\u201d \nNew York Post (Oct. 3, 2026), https://nypost.com/2026/10/03/opinion/kathy-hochul-tish-james-\nexploit-cornell-7-justice-be-damned/.; Calder, Rich, \u201cNY AG Letitia James too \u2018biased\u2019 to fairly \ninvestigate \n\u2018Cornell \n7\u2019 \nfrat \nboys: \ncritics.\u201d \nNew \nYork \nPost \n(Oct. \n3, \n2026), \nhttps://nypost.com/2026/10/03/us-news/ny-ag-letitia-james-too-biased-to-fairly-probe-cornell-7-\nfrat-boys-critics/.\n\n--- Page 16 ---\n-14- \n \nvirtually every experienced crime reporter following the developing story\u2014as well as everyday \nAmericans observing what is transpiring. \n28. \nAs a result of the coordinated and combined efforts of both the Governor and the \nAG, the duly elected District Attorney of Tompkins County was removed.  To be clear, only a \nsingle reason motivated the District Attorney\u2019s removal: he decided not to bring charges based on \nhis independent and unbiased review of the actual evidence.  That was it\u2014there have been no \nallegations of impropriety, or incompetence, or corruption.  Rather, the Governor simply did not \nlike the outcome and replaced the District Attorney with someone who is determined to bring \ncharges even before reviewing any evidence.  Under these circumstances, the public cannot have \nany \u201cconfidence in our government and the system of law to which it is dedicated.\u201d  Adams, 20 \nN.Y.3d at 612. \nC. \nThe AG Has Violated a Host of Ethical Rules That Govern Attorney Conduct \n \n29. \nThe AG\u2019s conduct also violated Rule 3.6 of the New York Rules of Professional \nConduct.  Rule 3.6(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from \nmaking an \u201cextrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be \ndisseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of \nmaterially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.\u201d  Rule 3.6(b) lists examples of \nsuch statements, including \u201cany opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a \ncriminal matter that could result in incarceration.\u201d  \n30. \nAs the state\u2019s top law enforcement officer, the AG is well aware of this rule yet \nsought to tell the world, and the grand jurors who will hear this case, through every possible \nelectronic means, that she had concluded guilt.  It is hard to imagine any other statement fitting \nmore squarely within Rule 3.6.  First, the AG made her statements outside of court (since there is\n\n--- Page 17 ---\n-15- \n \nno case) and not for the purposes of litigation.  Second, the AG\u2019s statements were disseminated\u2014\nand still exist\u2014on both her X and Facebook pages.  She has done nothing to mitigate the unethical \nconduct or the prejudice already achieved.  Third, the AG\u2019s statements are likely to further \nmaterially prejudice the grand jury proceeding in this matter.  She is the highest-ranking law \nenforcement officer in the state and she has said the targets of her investigation are guilty, and their \naccuser is a \u201csurvivor.\u201d  This is quintessential prejudgment.  Indeed, prejudice is what the AG \nintended.  The AG never so much as suggested that any of the subjects were presumed innocent \nand that they were not indicted for any crime.  Her motive and her decision was to indicate that a \nre-opened investigation should lead to an indictment.  Her statements would be inappropriate and \nprejudicial in any context.  But here, the AG was specifically aware\u2014and indeed, even linked to a \nnews article about an investigation\u2014that a grand jury would convene.  Her statements meant one \nthing: indict.  The Court must intervene. \n31. \nThe AG\u2019s statements likewise violate the New York Rules of Professional Conduct \n3.4, which command of \u201cFairness to Opposing Party and Counsel.\u201d  This prohibits a lawyer in a \ntrial from asserting \u201ca personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, \nthe culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.\u201d  By publicly affirming \nthat Ms. Doe was a \u201csurvivor\u201d and had been forced to endure \u201chorrific and unacceptable\u201d \ntreatment, the AG asserted precisely the kind of personal opinion as to guilt and credibility that \nRule 3.4 forbids.   Again, the AG\u2019s statements are not on the borderline.  They are heartland \nexamples of personal opinions on witness credibility and the guilt of the accused.   \n32. \nFinally, the AG\u2019s statements constitute \u201cconduct that is prejudicial to the \nadministration of justice\u201d under American Bar Association Rule 8.4(d).  A lawyer entrusted with \nthe \u201cspecial responsibilities of a prosecutor\u201d undermines public confidence in the evenhanded\n\n--- Page 18 ---\n-16- \n \nadministration of justice when she publicly commits herself to a factual conclusion before \nconducting the investigation that is supposed to test that conclusion.  The Court of Appeals has \nrecognized that a prosecutor may be disqualified where, even absent proof of actual prejudice, the \nrecord creates an \u201cunacceptably great appearance of impropriety.\u201d  People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d \n608, 613 (2013).  The same appearance of impropriety is presented where, as here, the special \nprosecutor publicly prejudged guilt before her appointment and before conducting any \ninvestigation of her own.  See also Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55 (1983) \n(holding that disqualification warranted upon a showing of actual prejudice or so substantial a risk \nthereof that it cannot be ignored). \nD. \nThe AG\u2019s Public Statements Have Prejudiced Any Future Grand Jury Proceedings  \n \n33. \nThe AG is our state\u2019s highest law enforcement official, and her public statements \nhave already prejudiced any grand jury\u2014for this reason, she must be removed. \n34. \nNew York Criminal Procedure Law \u00a7 190.25 mandates that the court must instruct \nthe grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it.\u201d  N.Y. Crim. \nProc. Law \u00a7 190.25.  \n35. \nWe respectfully request that all prospective grand jurors be polled to determine if \nthey have been exposed to or infected by the AG\u2019s statements concluding that Ms. Doe is a \n\u201csurvivor.\u201d  Such a preventative measure is necessary here because the Governor\u2019s hand-picked \nnew prosecutor has concluded guilt without looking at a shred of evidence.  The subjects of this \ninvestigation deserve to have the facts weighed fairly by an impartial panel of grand jurors and \nthis Court is vested with the power to ensure that they are impartial.\n\n--- Page 19 ---\n-17- \n \nE. \nThis Court Should Hold a Hearing to Determine the Extent of the AG\u2019s Prejudice   \n \n36. \nWe respectfully request a hearing to determine several things.  First, the written and \noral communications between the Governor\u2019s Office and the AG\u2019s Office regarding the \nappointment.  Second, the basis for the Governor\u2019s statement that the Cornell Police withheld \nfundamental, material evidence from the District Attorney.  Third, the basis for the Governor\u2019s \nstatement that the elected District Attorney refused to properly investigate the rape allegation.   \n37. \nThis information is relevant because the Governor premised her Executive Order \non her factual statement that the CUPD withheld material information from the prosecutor\u2019s office.  \n(Ex. 5, Executive Order at 1.)  Specifically, the Governor said at the press conference, \u201cthink about \nthat, in what world would the police learn from a victim that she had been literally gang raped \nwhile intoxicated by five men in a fraternity house and not elevate those allegations to the District \nAttorney?\u201d  (Ex. 4, Transcript of 10/2/26 Press Conference at 2.)  The Governor similarly \nimpugned the elected District Attorney, as indicated above.  A hearing would show that the \nGovernor\u2019s bold accusation against the CUPD and the District Attorney are false, and that the \nExecutive Order was a pretext to have a press conference in front of the entire nation where the \nGovernor and the Attorney General could appear hard on crime a month before each of them faced \nre-election. \nF. \nThis Court Has the Power to Grant the Requested Relief \n38. \nBefore being replaced under dubious pretenses, the Tompkins County District \nAttorney announced his intentions to reopen the investigation and present the case before the \nTompkins County grand jury.  Since being appointed as a special prosecutor, the Attorney General \nhas stated publicly that this matter \u201cis now an active criminal investigation.\u201d  Because the \nallegations in this case involve the felony offense of rape, the Attorney General would need to \npresent the case to the grand jury to proceed with a criminal case.  Inasmuch as the grand jury is\n\n--- Page 20 ---\n-18- \n \nan \u201carm of the court,\u201d this Court has \u201ca particular responsibility to prevent unfairness in Grand \nJury proceedings.\u201d  People v. Ianniello, 21 N.Y.2d 418, 424 (1968) (\u201cCourts have a particular \nresponsibility to prevent unfairness in Grand Jury proceedings, for the Grand Jury is an \u2018arm of \nthe court.\u2019\u201d); People v. Cain, 209 A.D.3d 124, 127 (3rd Dep\u2019t 2022) (quoting Ianniello).  \n39. \nIn addition, because the alleged rape was committed in Ithaca, within Tompkins \nCounty, and in no other location, the only appropriate grand jury is the Tompkins County Grand \nJury.  See CPL \u00a7 20.40 (establishing geographical jurisdiction in the county where an element of \nthe offense was committed).  As a result, this Court has the jurisdiction and authority to oversee \nthe integrity of the grand jury in this matter, including whether the Tompkins County grand jury is \nbeing conducted properly, by an appropriate prosecutor.   \n40. \nGiven the AG\u2019s conduct in this case\u2014which has created both a conflict of interest \nand an appearance of impropriety\u2014this Court should prevent unfairness in the grand jury by \nremoving Attorney General as a special prosecutor to prevent her and her office from presenting \nthe case to the grand jury.\n\n--- Page 21 ---\n-19- \n \nCONCLUSION \n41. \nFor the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that this Court (1) remove the \nAG from this investigation because of her conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety; \n(2) poll the impaneled grand jurors for their exposure to AG\u2019s outrageous statements; and (3) grant \na hearing and discovery. \n \nDated: October 8, 2026 \n \nNew York, NY \n \n \n________________________ \nTeny R. Geragos \nMarc Agnifilo \nJacob Kaplan \nAGNIFILO INTRATER LLP \n140 Broadway, Ste. 4530  \nNew York, NY 10005 \n(646) 205-4350 \nteny@agilawgroup.com \n \nAttorneys for Winston Lee \n \ncc: \nNew York State Office of the Attorney General (via email)","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nCOUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF TOMPKINS \n \n \nIn re Grand Jury  \n \n \nORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAFFIRMATION \nOF \nTENY \nROSE \nGERAGOS \nIN \nSUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RECUSE THE \nATTORNEY GENERAL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, \nFOR A HEARING AND DISCOVERY \n \n \n \n \n \nTeny R. Geragos \nMarc Agnifilo \nJacob Kaplan \nAGNIFILO INTRATER LLP \n140 Broadway, Ste. 4530  \nNew York, NY 10005 \n(646) 205-4350 \nteny@agilawgroup.com \n \nAttorneys for Winston Lee\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS 00... ecccecccscesessseseeecseeseceeeseesecaeesccnaeeceaesaeeeceaeeseeaeesesseeaeeaeeaecaeeaeeneeeees 3\nARGUMENT 1.0... cccccsssccssesscssesecseseeeceseesceseeseeseaecseesecsecsecaeeseesecaeesecaaesecsaecseeeceaeeseeaecsenaecaeeaeeaeeas 8\nA. The AG Must Be Disqualified Because She Has a Conflict of Interest ....0... eee eeeeeees 9\nB. The AG Must Be Disqualified for the Appearance of Impropriety ...........cecceceesseeeteeees 11\nC. The AG Has Violated a Host of Ethical Rules That Govern Attorney Conduct ............. 14\nD. The AG\u2019s Public Statements Have Prejudiced Any Future Grand Jury Proceedings....... 16\nE. This Court Should Hold a Hearing to Determine the Extent of the AG\u2019s Prejudice........ 17\nF, This Court Has the Power to Grant the Requested Relief... cece eccceesseeteceeteeeseeenseees 17\n\nCONCLUSION Wu. csecseesseeseecssesscesecssecssecsecssceseeesseescessceecesscesecsuecssecssesaeesesaesesscnascnaenaee 19\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nCOUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF TOMPKINS \n \n \nIn re Grand Jury  \n \n \nORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED \n \n \n \nSTATE OF NEW YORK \n) \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ss: \n \n \nTENY ROSE GERAGOS, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice in the courts of New \nYork State, affirms the following to be true under the penalty of perjury: \n1. \nI am an attorney and partner at Agnifilo Intrater LLP, a law firm located in New \nYork City, and I am an attorney for Winston Lee.  I make this affirmation in support of a motion \ndated October 8, 2026, seeking Orders (1) removing the New York State Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) \nfrom this investigation because of her conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety; (2) \npolling the impaneled grand jurors for their exposure to the AG\u2019s outrageous statements; and (3) \ngranting a hearing and discovery. \n2. \nThis affirmation is made upon information and belief. The basis for such \ninformation and the grounds for such belief are the statements from public officials and \ninformation provided to the public concerning the investigation into the allegations of sexual \nassault underlying this matter.  \nINTRODUCTION \n \n3. \nThe AG should be recused from investigating and prosecuting matters relating to \nan alleged sexual assault occurring in Tompkins County on October 19-20, 2024, for four reasons.  \nFirst, the circumstances surrounding the AG\u2019s appointment show that there is a conflict of interest.  \nSecond, the AG and the New York State Governor have together created a blatant appearance of \nimpropriety that, combined with the AG\u2019s ethical violations, should lead to the AG\u2019s recusal. Third,\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n-2- \n \nthe AG has made prejudicial extrajudicial statements in violation of the New York Rules of \nProfessional Conduct.  Fourth, the AG\u2019s public statements have prejudiced grand jurors because \nthe AG has already publicly prejudged the guilt of the subjects of this investigation.  In the \nalternative, this Court should hold a hearing to grant counsel discovery, including written \nstatements and testimony regarding the Governor\u2019s appointment of the AG in this matter.  \n4. \nJust 33 days before Election Day, in the midst of a fiercely contested gubernatorial \nrace in which her political opponent had repeatedly attacked her as soft on crime, the Governor \nwas handed a political windfall.  A plaintiff\u2019s attorney filed an unverified civil complaint against \nCornell University, a bar in Ithaca, a fraternity, a sorority, seven current or former students and \nothers\u2014including Mr. Lee.  In response, the Governor seized the filing as an opportunity to remove \nthe elected Tompkins County District Attorney who had examined the plaintiff\u2019s sworn statement \ntwo years earlier and determined no crime occurred.  In the District Attorney\u2019s place, the Governor \nappointed the New York State AG\u2014the same AG who just two days prior had prejudged the case \nand publicly condemned Cornell and the Tompkins County District Attorney and assured New \nYorkers that she, the AG, stood with the purported victim. By making these public statements, the \nAG conveyed clearly that she believed, despite not having examined a shred of evidence, that the \naccused were guilty.  Seeing the political advantage of giving the investigation to a prosecutor who \nis also facing re-election next month, and who had already made public statements prejudging the \noutcome, the Governor promptly removed the matter from the experienced and elected District \nAttorney and assigned it to the prosecutor who publicly stated she was standing with the \n\u201csurvivor.\u201d1  \n \n1 Absent a gubernatorial appointment, the AG has no general authority to prosecute ordinary \ncrimes including sexual assault.  The AG\u2019s original jurisdiction is limited to matters in which the \nLegislature has specifically conferred enforcement authority, including securities and business\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n-3- \n \n5. \nThis public political stunt by the Governor and the AG to make repeated public \nstatements, remove the case from the elected county prosecutor, and prejudge guilt in a criminal \ninvestigation for political advantage a month before election day is unethical and in violation of \nthe law.  The circumstances surrounding this appointment undermine the integrity of the grand \njury process and the due process rights of the investigation\u2019s subjects.  The AG is unquestionably \nbiased, as her own public statements show. Indeed, her blatant public bias is the reason the \nGovernor took this case from the elected county prosecutor and transferred prosecutorial power to \nher.  The public cannot, and should not, have any confidence in the investigation or charging \ndecisions of someone who has clearly prejudged the guilt of individuals who the law presumes are \ninnocent and has further sought to prejudice the grand jurors who may be called upon to evaluate \nthe evidence presented.  It is the height of unfairness that an uncharged person like Mr. Lee, \npresumed to be innocent, should be investigated by anyone\u2014much less the AG\u2014who has already \npublicly endorsed the purported victim and concluded the accused are guilty.   Finally, because the \nAG was selected by the Governor specifically because of her prejudicial public statements, she \nhas a conflict of interest because the Governor expects a particular outcome that she has agreed to \npursue.  The AG should be removed. \nSTATEMENT OF FACTS \n6. \nIn November of 2024, the Cornell University Police Department (\u201cCUPD\u201d) \ninformed the Tompkins County District Attorney\u2019s Office of a complaint and asked the District \nAttorney to review a female\u2019s (\u201cJane Doe\u201d) sworn statement \u201cto determine if her allegations \n \nfraud, consumer protection, Medicaid fraud, charitable organizations, civil rights, and certain \npublic-integrity offenses.  As the AG does not prosecute sexual assault offenses, that office does \nnot have any expertise in sexual assault investigations and prosecutions justifying any substantive \nreason for their appointment.  The Governor\u2019s appointment of the AG to supersede a local district \nattorney and prosecute an ordinary sexual-assault case appears to be unprecedented, or at minimum \nextraordinarily rare, in New York.\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n-4- \n \nconstituted a crime under New York law.\u201d  (Ex. 1, TCDA Statement at 2.)  After conducting an \nindependent investigation, which included review of Ms. Doe\u2019s six-page signed and sworn \nstatement with twenty different hand-written revisions made by Ms. Doe, and assuming the facts \nas true, the District Attorney confirmed that \u201ccriminal charges were not appropriate.\u201d  (Id. at 3.)  \nBased, in part, on Ms. Doe\u2019s own sworn statement, the District Attorney concluded that Ms. Doe\u2019s \nparticipation in drug use and sexual conduct was \u201cvoluntary, conscious, and consensual.\u201d  (Ex. 1 \nat 2.)  Despite the District Attorney\u2019s Office offering to speak to Ms. Doe, neither Ms. Doe nor her \nattorneys ever contacted the District Attorney to suggest that her signed sworn statement was in \nany way inaccurate.  (Id. at 3\u20134.) \n7. \nInstead, on September 16, 2026, two years after the District Attorney\u2019s conclusion \nthat a crime had not occurred, Ms. Doe retained civil counsel and filed a civil lawsuit seeking \nmonetary damages\u2014alleging conduct wholly different than the consensual conduct she swore to \nunder oath in November 2024.  (See Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc. et al, Index No. \n161704/2026, Doc. No. 1 (\u201cComplaint\u201d).)  Rather than describing the conduct as conscious and \nvoluntary, Ms. Doe now claimed she was \u201cdrugged against her will\u201d and that she was \u201cgang raped.\u201d  \n(Ex. 1 at 2; see also Complaint \u00b6 163.)  In addition to suing seven individuals (two of whom she \nknows never touched her), she sued their fraternity, her sorority, the bar where she apparently drank \nalcohol, Cornell University and others. \n8. \nFollowing the filing of the lawsuit, the \u201ccommunity\u201d asked the District Attorney to \n\u201crevisit the decision whether to pursue criminal charges against the seven fraternity members.\u201d  \n(Id. at 9.)  Accordingly, despite the \u201cdiscrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit\u2019s \nallegations,\u201d the District Attorney assigned a senior prosecutor with significant experience \ninvestigating sex crimes to investigate the matter.  (Id. at 9.)  He noted that, of course, reopening\n\n--- Page 7 ---\ncases such as this \u201cobviously works better when [] additional information comes directly from a\nwitness, his or her representative, or the police rather than through allegations set forth in a civil\nlawsuit, but getting to the truth is the goal in this case.\u201d (/d. at 8.)\n\n9. That same day, the AG having apparently reviewed no evidence\u2014decided to make\nposts on her X account and Facebook account. Her statement came a month before her reelection\nand served as the opening move in a coordinated effort with the Governor to seize the case for\npolitical fanfare. The AG\u2019s posts expressed views about the allegations and linked to a New York\nTimes article reporting the reopening of the investigation. The AG stated, \u201c[w]hat this young\nwoman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I\u2019m holding her in my heart and\nmy prayers. To her, and to all survivors: you\u2019re not alone. We stand with you.\u201d\n\n\u00ae NY AG James @ Br\n. @NewyYorkStateAG\nWhat this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and\nunacceptable. I\u2019m holding her in my heart and in my prayers.\nTo her, and to all survivors: you\u2019re not alone. We stand with you.\ngo Dy A ili }\nPus Sts tode |\nCornell Sexual Assault Investigation to Be Reopened \u201ca 1, = anion . ae\nFrom nytimes.com\n6:13 PM - Sep 28, 2026 - 624.9K Views\n\n10. \u2014_It is not a coincidence that the AG made these posts while \u201clinking\u201d to a story that\nthe Tompkins County District Attorney would re-open the investigation nor that the AG made these\nposts a month before election day. The AG wanted the world, and particularly the Governor, to\nsee that the AG was on Ms. Doe\u2019s side\u2014that she \u201cst[ood] with [her]\u201d and perhaps more importantly\n\n-5-\n\n\n--- Page 8 ---\n-6- \n \nthat the AG, like the Governor, was willing to make prejudicial extrajudicial statements.  Even in \nthe absence of evidence, and even without it being the AG\u2019s case, the AG was determined to make \npublic statements about an ongoing, recently opened criminal investigation to state to the world \nthat the woman was a \u201csurvivor\u201d and the uncharged subjects were guilty.  As of October 5, 2026, \nher X post has been viewed over 600,000 times.  Her words were a blatant calling card to the \nGovernor that the case should be taken from the elected county District Attorney and given to the \nAG.  After all, she had already decided that Ms. Doe was a \u201csurvivor,\u201d that she \u201chas been forced \nto endure\u201d things, and that the things the female \u201cendure[d]\u201d were \u201chorrific and unacceptable.\u201d  \nHow could the AG know whether the new allegations in the civil filing were true without speaking \nto Ms. Doe, conducting any investigation, reviewing any evidence, or making any inquiries \nwhatsoever? \n11. \nTwo days later, on October 1, the Governor\u201433 days before she would face the \nvoters\u2014decided to make a statement.  She said that newly released information raised \u201cserious \nquestions\u201d about both the CUPD investigation and the District Attorney\u2019s decision not to \nprosecute, and that it had \u201cundercut my faith, and the public\u2019s faith, in the District Attorney\u2019s ability \nto effectively investigate and prosecute the case.\u201d  (Ex. 2, Governor\u2019s 10/1/26 Press Release at 2.)  \nPurportedly so that the public could have faith in a completely unbiased and fair decision-making \nprocess, the Governor appointed the AG to re-open the investigation.  The Governor intoned, of \ncourse, that the matter would be handled \u201cwithout conflict or bias.\u201d (Id.) \n12. \nThe AG, for her part, issued her own press release and stated, \u201cevery New Yorker \ndeserves to know that when they report a crime, it will be investigated fully and fairly.\u201d  (Ex. 3, \nAG\u2019s 10/1/26 Press Release at 1.)\n\n--- Page 9 ---\n-7- \n \n13. \nTo amplify her message, the next day, on October 2, 2026, with her re-election now \n32 days away, the Governor held a press conference. Before the assembled cameras and \nmicrophones, the Governor made her own comments about the case and she invited the AG.  The \nGovernor made strong accusations against the CUPD that it failed to fairly and accurately report \nMs. Doe\u2019s statement to the District Attorney, specifically stating that \u201cshockingly those words \n[rape] never made it into the account that the Cornell Police sent to prosecutors.\u201d2  The Governor \nalso said Jane Doe had been \u201cfailed by people and institutions with an obligation to protect her.\u201d  \nThe Governor asked: \u201cIn what world would the police learn from a victim that she\u2019d been literally \ngang raped while she was intoxicated by five men in a fraternity house and not elevate those \nallegations to the District Attorney?\u201d  (Ex. 4, Transcript of 10/2/26 Press Conference at 2.)  She \ncontinued: \nThis young woman had already endured something that is utterly unspeakable and \nthat at every turn she was failed by people and institutions with an obligation to \nprotect her.[3]  When the Tompkins County District Attorney announced that he is \nreopening the case, he pointed to Jane Doe\u2019s statement and said it did not establish \nthat a crime had occurred.  But new reporting raises serious questions about the \ninformation his office relied upon when it made that decision.  That\u2019s why I believe \nthis case demands a special prosecutor who will provide a fresh and thorough \nreview of all the facts, including the information that has recently come to light.  \nAnd that is why I\u2019m invoking the power conferred to me as the governor of the state \nof New York to enlist Attorney James as an independent special prosecutor in this \ncase. She\u2019ll follow the facts.  She\u2019ll examine the evidence and go wherever it leads.  \nAnd if the evidence supports criminal charges, she will pursue them. \n \n(Id. at 2\u20133.)4 \n \n \n2 Notably, in the 6-page signed and sworn summary that contained 20 hand-written corrections \nmade by Ms. Doe, Ms. Doe herself never included that she was raped. \n \n3 This assertion is wholly inaccurate as Cornell University conducted a fulsome hearing, and the \nDistrict Attorney asked whether Jane Doe wanted to speak with his Office.  \n4 For a full video of the press conference, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfstUrpG_tQ.\n\n--- Page 10 ---\n-8- \n \n14. \nThe AG then told the room of reporters that \u201c[t]his is now an active criminal \ninvestigation.\u201d  \n15. \nThe very first question from a reporter asked the Governor and the AG about the \nAG\u2019s social media postings:  \nAttorney General, on your Facebook page three days ago, you wrote, \u201c[w]hat this \nyoung woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable.  I\u2019m holding \nher in my heart and my prayers.  To her, and to all survivors:  you\u2019re not alone.  We \nstand with you.\u201d  Why did you affirm her allegations as fact without doing your \nown factfinding investigation and to the governor, why did you appoint an official \nwho made a statement affirming those allegations as fact as someone who is \nsupposed to be doing an investigation? \n \n16. \nThe AG declined to \u201ccomment\u201d on her own posts.  Neither of our elected officials \nmentioned a word about the constitutional bedrock on which this country was founded: the \npresumption of innocence afforded to every individual accused of a crime. \n17. \nOf course, at the time the AG made these statements, she had not \u201cfollow[ed] the \nfacts\u201d nor \u201cexamine[d] the evidence\u201d as the Governor had said she would. She had merely assumed \nand prejudged guilt; the exact opposite of the duty of a prosecutor. \nARGUMENT \n18. \nA long time ago, Manhattan District Attorney Frank Hogan said, \u201cyou can\u2019t play \npolitics with people\u2019s lives.\u201d  The Governor and AG are doing exactly that.  The filing of the \nunverified civil complaint shortly before the contested New York gubernatorial and attorney \ngeneral elections has caused them to abandon their ethical principles as attorneys and elected \nofficials and become indifferent to the rights of the accused in criminal investigations.  Deciding \nthere is more political mileage in making condemning statements prejudicing the investigation\u2019s \nsubjects (as well as the prosecutors and police officers) than in following due process, the two have \nmade a public spectacle of what should be a solemn, serious, non-public process of commencing \na grand jury investigation that should have never been reopened in the first place.\n\n--- Page 11 ---\n-9- \n \n19. \nThe AG has already decided that Ms. Doe is a victim of sexual assault, and that the \nevents that took place on October 24, 2024, were not consensual, but rather \u201chorrific\u201d and \n\u201cunacceptable.\u201d  Without ever speaking to Ms. Doe and without reviewing any law enforcement \nmaterials,5 she already concluded that Ms. Doe was a \u201csurvivor\u201d\u2014meaning that one or more of \nthe purported assailants was guilty of sexual assault.  This is bias in its truest form and the opposite \nof a prosecutor\u2019s role to evaluate the facts honestly and fairly.  \n20. \nThe Governor removed a prosecutor who, in painstaking detail, reviewed Ms. Doe\u2019s \nstatement, applied it to the law, and concluded that no crime existed.  However, in response to \n\u201ccommunity\u201d activists insisting that he reopen his investigation, he agreed to.  This did not suit the \nGovernor.  In response, she hand-selected a special prosecutor with no expertise in sexual assault \ninvestigations, who had already decided guilt, had already decided the events of October 24 were \n\u201cunacceptable,\u201d and was biased in favor of a complainant.  The AG\u2019s conduct is a violation of the \nNew York Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association\u2019s Ethics, and her public \nstatements have so prejudiced any future grand jury proceedings that no quorum can fairly weigh \nthe evidence.  This Court must remove her for bias and the appearance of impropriety. \nA. \nThe AG Must Be Disqualified Because She Has a Conflict of Interest  \n \n21. \nAs noted, the AG made prejudicial public statements about this matter on the very \nday that the Tompkins County DA stated the investigation was being reopened because she wanted \nto take the case.  Her prejudicial statements reached the desired audience, the Governor.  They also \n \n5 It is unclear whether the AG reviewed Ms. Doe\u2019s initial sworn statement to police or her differing \naccount in her lawsuit, or whether she had read anything at all related to this case.  As noted, she \ndeclined to answer questions about her own Facebook posts.\n\n--- Page 12 ---\n-10- \n \nreached hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers.6  The AG then had a press conference alongside \nthe Governor where the Governor accused the CUPD of withholding critical evidence of guilt from \nthe District Attorney and accused the District Attorney of dereliction of duty for not sufficiently \ninvestigating the case.7  After leveling these serious accusations against these public servants, the \nGovernor stated, \u201cthis woman, this young woman had already endured something that was \nunspeakable,\u201d stating clearly that as a matter of fact this woman had been gang raped.  The \nGovernor could hardly have been clearer: this woman was gang raped, the young men who did it \nare guilty, and they escaped guilt because the CUPD withheld evidence and the Tompkins County \nDistrict Attorney refused to investigate.  The message to the world and to the AG was equally \nclear: investigate them, indict them, and convict them. \n22. \nNo doubt, the Governor, an experienced politician, stated that the AG would be \nindependent.  However, these are hollow, pretextual words after the same Governor had just \nimpugned an entire police department and a sitting, elected District Attorney.  There is no evidence \nthat CUPD withheld evidence or that the D.A. refused to investigate this case.  In fact, the evidence \nand logic support the opposite.  What has happened here is that these responsible law enforcement \nprofessionals came to a different conclusion than what is politically expedient to the Governor a \nmonth before an election.   \n \n6 Since September 17, the Cornell 7 matter has generated 41,583 media and online mentions, with \na potential audience of 79.5 billion impressions and an estimated publicity value of more than $927 \nmillion. \n \n7 The Tompkins County District Attorney\u2019s Office regularly prosecutes rape and other sex offenses \nand employs experienced sex-crimes prosecutors.  Indeed, before the Governor removed the office \nfrom this case, District Attorney Van Houten had assigned it to a senior prosecutor whom he \ndescribed as having \u201csignificant experience in prosecuting sex crimes,\u201d including jury trials \ninvolving sexual assaults of college students by other college students.  The same cannot be said \nabout the New York Attorney General.\n\n--- Page 13 ---\n-11- \n \n23. \nMoreover, the AG is not independent, as her public statements show, nor do she or \nher office possess any expertise in prosecuting sexual assault cases warranting the extraordinary \nreassignment and appointment to this case.  She solicited the Governor to be the Special Prosecutor \nthrough her prejudicial public statement about the case, and she understands that the Governor \nappointed her with a particular result in mind.  This is the very definition of a conflict of interest \nand is the basis for removal.  See People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 612 (2013) (noting that courts \nshould remove a public prosecutor \u2018\u201cto protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a \ndemonstrated conflict of interest\u2019\u201d (quoting Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55 \n(1983)); People v. Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d 390, 394 (1980) (\u201cIt would be simplistic therefore to think \nof the impact of a prosecutor\u2019s conflict of interest merely in terms of explicit instances of abuse. \nEven our thumbnail description of prosecutorial power is enough to indicate that resulting \nprejudice can at least as easily flow from an act of omission as from one of commission, from \ndiscretion withheld as from discretion exercised.  In this context, whether abuse is express or \nimplied may be difficult to determine.  Suffice it to say that any presumption of impartiality tends \nto be undermined when there is a clear conflict of interest.\u201d). \n  \nB. \nThe AG Must Be Disqualified for the Appearance of Impropriety \n \n24. \nAs the Court of Appeals has noted, a public prosecutor plays a vital role in the \ncriminal justice system because a prosecutor\u2019s \u201cmission is not so much to convict as it is to achieve \na just result\u201d:  \nCentral to the issue so sharply drawn is the pivotal point at which a public \nprosecutor stands in the criminal justice system.  Unlike other participants in the \ntraditional common-law adversarial process, whose more singular function is to \nprotect and advance the rights of one side, a District Attorney carries an additional \nand more sensitive burden.  It is not enough for him to be intent on the prosecution \nof his case.  Granted that his paramount obligation is to the public, he must never \nlose sight of the fact that a defendant, as an integral member of the body politic, is\n\n--- Page 14 ---\n-12- \n \nentitled to a full measure of fairness.  Put another way, his mission is not so much \nto convict as it is to achieve a just result. \n \nPeople v. Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d 390, 393 (1980). \n25. \nInstead of adhering to a public prosecutor\u2019s sacrosanct duty to pursue justice, the \nAG has made it abundantly clear that her mission is to bring criminal charges no matter what the \nevidence shows.  This unabashed bias has already prejudiced Mr. Lee in the media and, more \nimportantly, before potential grand jurors in Tompkins County. \n26. \nIn addition to her prejudicial conduct, the AG\u2019s actions have also created the \nappearance of impropriety.  The Court of Appeals has recognized that the appearance of \nimpropriety \u201citself is a ground for disqualification\u201d \u201cwhen the appearance is such as to \u2018discourage \n[ ] public confidence in our government and the system of law to which it is dedicated.\u2019\u201d  People \nv. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 612 (2013) (quoting Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d at 396).  The Court of Appeals \nfurther noted that, \u201c[i]n a case of that nature, \u2018[d]efendant[s], and indeed the public at large, are \nentitled to protection against the appearance of impropriety.\u2019\u201d  Adams, 20 N.Y.3d at 612\u201313 \n(quoting People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 421 (1980)); see also Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d at 396 (\u201cIt \nwas important that these responsibilities, carried out in the name of the State and under the color \nof the law, be conducted in a manner that fostered rather than discouraged public confidence in \nour government and the system of law to which it is dedicated.  This concern, that those occupying \nprosecutorial office be jealous of the evidences as well as the substance of integrity, was not to be \ndiscounted.\u201d). \n27. \nHere, the AG made gratuitous social media posts demonstrating that\u2014whether the \nevidence supported it or not\u2014she was going to turn this investigation into a criminal case.  The \nstatements are classic examples of a rush to judgment\u2014indeed, they do little other than \ndemonstrate that the AG has already decided what happened, without the inconvenience of an\n\n--- Page 15 ---\n-13- \n \nactual investigation.  These statements had the intended effect of signaling to the Governor that \nshe should appoint the AG as the special prosecutor during contested gubernatorial and attorney \ngeneral elections because the AG had already prejudged the case and was looking to indict.  These \nstatements have also reverberated through the public, creating the (accurate) impression that the \nGovernor appointed the AG specifically to turn this civil complaint into a criminal case and reverse \nthe decision of an elected prosecutor with sexual assault experience.  As the Wall Street Journal \nopined, the signal the Governor \u201cis sending couldn\u2019t be clearer and goes well beyond the usual \nefforts of a politician to please her constituents: There is only one acceptable outcome here, and I \nexpect Attorney General James to find it.\u201d8  And again, reporters highlighted the appearance of \nbias immediately during the Governor\u2019s press conference, questioning why the AG made public \nstatements prejudging the case and why the Governor endorsed the prejudicial statements by \nappointing the AG.  There are certainly cases where the only one claiming an appearance of \nimpropriety is a single lawyer.  In this case, however, it is being shouted from the rooftops by \n \n8 Dillon, Justin, \u201cCornell, Letitia James and the New York Ethics Code.\u201d Wall Street Journal (Oct. \n4, \n2026), \nhttps://www.wsj.com/opinion/cornell-letitia-james-and-the-new-york-ethics-code-\nc4f21354. This sentiment has been echoed by newspapers across the country. See Vennochi, Joan, \n\u201cThe Cornell rape case deserves a prosecutor with an open mind.\u201d Boston Globe (Oct. 5, 2026),  \nhttps://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/10/05/opinion/jane-doe-cornell-case-letitia-james/ \n(\u201cJane \nDoe\u2019s allegations of being drugged and raped at a Cornell University fraternity house deserve what \nNew York Governor Kathy Hochul said she was calling for: \u2018a special prosecutor who will provide \na fresh and thorough review of all the facts, including the information that has recently come to \nlight.\u2019 Attorney General Letitia James is not the right person for that job.\u201d); Doherty, Jennifer, \n\u201cNewly Appointed To Oversee the Cornell Rape Case, Letitia James Appears To Have Already \nDecided Who\u2019s Guilty.\u201d The Sun (Oct. 2, 2026) https://www.nysun.com/article/newly-appointed-\nto-oversee-the-cornell-rape-case-letitia-james-appears-to-have-already-decided-whos-guilty; Post \nEditorial Board, \u201cKathy Hochul, Tish James rush to exploit \u2018Cornell 7\u2019 \u2014 justice be damned.\u201d \nNew York Post (Oct. 3, 2026), https://nypost.com/2026/10/03/opinion/kathy-hochul-tish-james-\nexploit-cornell-7-justice-be-damned/.; Calder, Rich, \u201cNY AG Letitia James too \u2018biased\u2019 to fairly \ninvestigate \n\u2018Cornell \n7\u2019 \nfrat \nboys: \ncritics.\u201d \nNew \nYork \nPost \n(Oct. \n3, \n2026), \nhttps://nypost.com/2026/10/03/us-news/ny-ag-letitia-james-too-biased-to-fairly-probe-cornell-7-\nfrat-boys-critics/.\n\n--- Page 16 ---\n-14- \n \nvirtually every experienced crime reporter following the developing story\u2014as well as everyday \nAmericans observing what is transpiring. \n28. \nAs a result of the coordinated and combined efforts of both the Governor and the \nAG, the duly elected District Attorney of Tompkins County was removed.  To be clear, only a \nsingle reason motivated the District Attorney\u2019s removal: he decided not to bring charges based on \nhis independent and unbiased review of the actual evidence.  That was it\u2014there have been no \nallegations of impropriety, or incompetence, or corruption.  Rather, the Governor simply did not \nlike the outcome and replaced the District Attorney with someone who is determined to bring \ncharges even before reviewing any evidence.  Under these circumstances, the public cannot have \nany \u201cconfidence in our government and the system of law to which it is dedicated.\u201d  Adams, 20 \nN.Y.3d at 612. \nC. \nThe AG Has Violated a Host of Ethical Rules That Govern Attorney Conduct \n \n29. \nThe AG\u2019s conduct also violated Rule 3.6 of the New York Rules of Professional \nConduct.  Rule 3.6(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from \nmaking an \u201cextrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be \ndisseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of \nmaterially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.\u201d  Rule 3.6(b) lists examples of \nsuch statements, including \u201cany opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a \ncriminal matter that could result in incarceration.\u201d  \n30. \nAs the state\u2019s top law enforcement officer, the AG is well aware of this rule yet \nsought to tell the world, and the grand jurors who will hear this case, through every possible \nelectronic means, that she had concluded guilt.  It is hard to imagine any other statement fitting \nmore squarely within Rule 3.6.  First, the AG made her statements outside of court (since there is\n\n--- Page 17 ---\n-15- \n \nno case) and not for the purposes of litigation.  Second, the AG\u2019s statements were disseminated\u2014\nand still exist\u2014on both her X and Facebook pages.  She has done nothing to mitigate the unethical \nconduct or the prejudice already achieved.  Third, the AG\u2019s statements are likely to further \nmaterially prejudice the grand jury proceeding in this matter.  She is the highest-ranking law \nenforcement officer in the state and she has said the targets of her investigation are guilty, and their \naccuser is a \u201csurvivor.\u201d  This is quintessential prejudgment.  Indeed, prejudice is what the AG \nintended.  The AG never so much as suggested that any of the subjects were presumed innocent \nand that they were not indicted for any crime.  Her motive and her decision was to indicate that a \nre-opened investigation should lead to an indictment.  Her statements would be inappropriate and \nprejudicial in any context.  But here, the AG was specifically aware\u2014and indeed, even linked to a \nnews article about an investigation\u2014that a grand jury would convene.  Her statements meant one \nthing: indict.  The Court must intervene. \n31. \nThe AG\u2019s statements likewise violate the New York Rules of Professional Conduct \n3.4, which command of \u201cFairness to Opposing Party and Counsel.\u201d  This prohibits a lawyer in a \ntrial from asserting \u201ca personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, \nthe culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.\u201d  By publicly affirming \nthat Ms. Doe was a \u201csurvivor\u201d and had been forced to endure \u201chorrific and unacceptable\u201d \ntreatment, the AG asserted precisely the kind of personal opinion as to guilt and credibility that \nRule 3.4 forbids.   Again, the AG\u2019s statements are not on the borderline.  They are heartland \nexamples of personal opinions on witness credibility and the guilt of the accused.   \n32. \nFinally, the AG\u2019s statements constitute \u201cconduct that is prejudicial to the \nadministration of justice\u201d under American Bar Association Rule 8.4(d).  A lawyer entrusted with \nthe \u201cspecial responsibilities of a prosecutor\u201d undermines public confidence in the evenhanded\n\n--- Page 18 ---\n-16- \n \nadministration of justice when she publicly commits herself to a factual conclusion before \nconducting the investigation that is supposed to test that conclusion.  The Court of Appeals has \nrecognized that a prosecutor may be disqualified where, even absent proof of actual prejudice, the \nrecord creates an \u201cunacceptably great appearance of impropriety.\u201d  People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d \n608, 613 (2013).  The same appearance of impropriety is presented where, as here, the special \nprosecutor publicly prejudged guilt before her appointment and before conducting any \ninvestigation of her own.  See also Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55 (1983) \n(holding that disqualification warranted upon a showing of actual prejudice or so substantial a risk \nthereof that it cannot be ignored). \nD. \nThe AG\u2019s Public Statements Have Prejudiced Any Future Grand Jury Proceedings  \n \n33. \nThe AG is our state\u2019s highest law enforcement official, and her public statements \nhave already prejudiced any grand jury\u2014for this reason, she must be removed. \n34. \nNew York Criminal Procedure Law \u00a7 190.25 mandates that the court must instruct \nthe grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it.\u201d  N.Y. Crim. \nProc. Law \u00a7 190.25.  \n35. \nWe respectfully request that all prospective grand jurors be polled to determine if \nthey have been exposed to or infected by the AG\u2019s statements concluding that Ms. Doe is a \n\u201csurvivor.\u201d  Such a preventative measure is necessary here because the Governor\u2019s hand-picked \nnew prosecutor has concluded guilt without looking at a shred of evidence.  The subjects of this \ninvestigation deserve to have the facts weighed fairly by an impartial panel of grand jurors and \nthis Court is vested with the power to ensure that they are impartial.\n\n--- Page 19 ---\n-17- \n \nE. \nThis Court Should Hold a Hearing to Determine the Extent of the AG\u2019s Prejudice   \n \n36. \nWe respectfully request a hearing to determine several things.  First, the written and \noral communications between the Governor\u2019s Office and the AG\u2019s Office regarding the \nappointment.  Second, the basis for the Governor\u2019s statement that the Cornell Police withheld \nfundamental, material evidence from the District Attorney.  Third, the basis for the Governor\u2019s \nstatement that the elected District Attorney refused to properly investigate the rape allegation.   \n37. \nThis information is relevant because the Governor premised her Executive Order \non her factual statement that the CUPD withheld material information from the prosecutor\u2019s office.  \n(Ex. 5, Executive Order at 1.)  Specifically, the Governor said at the press conference, \u201cthink about \nthat, in what world would the police learn from a victim that she had been literally gang raped \nwhile intoxicated by five men in a fraternity house and not elevate those allegations to the District \nAttorney?\u201d  (Ex. 4, Transcript of 10/2/26 Press Conference at 2.)  The Governor similarly \nimpugned the elected District Attorney, as indicated above.  A hearing would show that the \nGovernor\u2019s bold accusation against the CUPD and the District Attorney are false, and that the \nExecutive Order was a pretext to have a press conference in front of the entire nation where the \nGovernor and the Attorney General could appear hard on crime a month before each of them faced \nre-election. \nF. \nThis Court Has the Power to Grant the Requested Relief \n38. \nBefore being replaced under dubious pretenses, the Tompkins County District \nAttorney announced his intentions to reopen the investigation and present the case before the \nTompkins County grand jury.  Since being appointed as a special prosecutor, the Attorney General \nhas stated publicly that this matter \u201cis now an active criminal investigation.\u201d  Because the \nallegations in this case involve the felony offense of rape, the Attorney General would need to \npresent the case to the grand jury to proceed with a criminal case.  Inasmuch as the grand jury is\n\n--- Page 20 ---\n-18- \n \nan \u201carm of the court,\u201d this Court has \u201ca particular responsibility to prevent unfairness in Grand \nJury proceedings.\u201d  People v. Ianniello, 21 N.Y.2d 418, 424 (1968) (\u201cCourts have a particular \nresponsibility to prevent unfairness in Grand Jury proceedings, for the Grand Jury is an \u2018arm of \nthe court.\u2019\u201d); People v. Cain, 209 A.D.3d 124, 127 (3rd Dep\u2019t 2022) (quoting Ianniello).  \n39. \nIn addition, because the alleged rape was committed in Ithaca, within Tompkins \nCounty, and in no other location, the only appropriate grand jury is the Tompkins County Grand \nJury.  See CPL \u00a7 20.40 (establishing geographical jurisdiction in the county where an element of \nthe offense was committed).  As a result, this Court has the jurisdiction and authority to oversee \nthe integrity of the grand jury in this matter, including whether the Tompkins County grand jury is \nbeing conducted properly, by an appropriate prosecutor.   \n40. \nGiven the AG\u2019s conduct in this case\u2014which has created both a conflict of interest \nand an appearance of impropriety\u2014this Court should prevent unfairness in the grand jury by \nremoving Attorney General as a special prosecutor to prevent her and her office from presenting \nthe case to the grand jury.\n\n--- Page 21 ---\n-19- \n \nCONCLUSION \n41. \nFor the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that this Court (1) remove the \nAG from this investigation because of her conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety; \n(2) poll the impaneled grand jurors for their exposure to AG\u2019s outrageous statements; and (3) grant \na hearing and discovery. \n \nDated: October 8, 2026 \n \nNew York, NY \n \n \n________________________ \nTeny R. Geragos \nMarc Agnifilo \nJacob Kaplan \nAGNIFILO INTRATER LLP \n140 Broadway, Ste. 4530  \nNew York, NY 10005 \n(646) 205-4350 \nteny@agilawgroup.com \n \nAttorneys for Winston Lee \n \ncc: \nNew York State Office of the Attorney General (via email)","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/691/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/691"}