{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"district-attorney-public-statement-9-28-26","alternateName":"district-attorney-public-statement-9-28-26.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/9/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-06T01:53:43+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"9","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/9/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/9/index.md"},"name":"district-attorney-public-statement-9-28-26","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nTompkins County \nDISTRICT ATTORNEY\nMatthew Van Houten \n320 North Tioga Street \nTel: (607) 274-5461 \nDistrict Attorney \nIthaca, New York 14850 \nFax: (607) 274-5429 \n\u201cInclusion Through Diversity\u201d \n1 \nSeptember 28, 2026 \nPRESS RELEASE / FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE \n================================================ \nStatement regarding Jane Doe v. Cornell University, et al \nOn September 18, 2026, I learned of the civil complaint filed in New York County Court alleging a \nseries of heinous and despicable acts committed by members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University \nagainst a fellow Cornell student on October 19, 2024. The lawsuit, which has been published and widely \ndiscussed online, sets forth allegations of multiple sexual assaults committed by male fraternity members \nagainst a woman who is referred to as Jane Doe. Given the lawsuit\u2019s graphic allegations of criminal \nconduct, the question of why those individuals were not criminally prosecuted has been raised. Over the \npast two weeks, many people have called my office, left voicemails, and sent emails about this case. Some \npeople have understandably sought answers. Others have simply insulted and sometimes threatened my \noffice and my staff. In each case, the comments and questions have been based solely on the allegations in \nthe civil lawsuit and its characterization by news and social media sources.  \nWhile I generally refrain from commenting publicly on criminal investigations, the community \noutrage stemming from the incomplete news and social media coverage requires that I provide an answer to \nwhy the investigation resulted in a lack of criminal charges. Before I discuss the specific facts and reasons \nthat went into this decision, I want to provide the answer in the most basic and understandable form:\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \nJane Doe\u2019s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against \nher will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe\u2019s statement described her participation in drug use \nand sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could \nnot have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be \nfiled until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doe\u2019s attorneys. \nNot to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. \nRather, I reached out to Jane Doe\u2019s attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the \ndiscrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit\u2019s allegations and the proper path forward \nin light of the lawsuit\u2019s allegations. \nThe primary obligation of the District Attorney\u2019s Office is to prosecute state criminal offenses by \nreviewing police evidence, presenting cases to the Grand Jury, and litigating cases in court. While the \nDistrict Attorney\u2019s Office is often called upon to provide investigation support to police agencies, we do not \nconduct parallel independent investigations of cases alongside police investigations. The police investigate \ncrimes. The District Attorney\u2019s Office prosecutes crimes. \nIn November of 2024, the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) informed the DA\u2019s Office \nof their investigation in this case and asked us to review a statement provided by Jane Doe to determine if \nher allegations constituted a crime under New York law. Law enforcement agencies commonly consult with \nus on questions of evidence, matters of law, and potential charges, if any. \nIn November of 2024, the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) asked the District \nAttorney\u2019s Office to review a statement provided by Jane Doe. This is not unusual. It is common practice \nfor law enforcement agencies to consult with the DA\u2019s Office when investigations involve significant or \nlegally technical matters such as those involving allegations of sexual conduct and questions about the legal \ndefinition of \u201clack of consent.\u201d  \nIn this case, Jane Doe provided a six-page, single spaced, typewritten statement to the Cornell \nUniversity Police Department. Jane Doe made more than twenty hand-written notations to the six-page \ndocument. The signature page of the statement contains the following language: \u201cI have read this statement \nconsisting of 6 pages and the facts contained herein are true and correct.  I understand that making a false\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \nwritten statement is punishable as a class A Misdemeanor pursuant to \u00a7210.45 of the Penal Law of the State \nof New York.\u201d  As I explain further below, the statement \u2013 especially as it relates to the legal definition of \n\u201clack of consent\u201d \u2013 provides a different narrative and set of facts of the events of October 19, 2024 than \nthose alleged in the lawsuit. But first, let me explain more about the review process. \nIn cases where a voluntary sworn statement is provided, the first step of a review is to determine \nwhether the facts alleged in the statement constitute a crime or crimes. For purposes of this stage of review, \nthe allegations are assumed to be true. If the allegations do not set forth the elements of criminal conduct \nunder the New York State Penal Law even if we assume them to be true, we obviously cannot advise the \npolice that criminal charges are appropriate. Furthermore, we obviously do not advise the police to change \nthe facts or to get a witness to change his or her statement so that someone can be charged with a crime.  It \ngoes without saying that doing so would be blatantly improper and unethical.   \nIn this case, multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe\u2019s statement and \ncorrectly determined the alleged facts as set forth in the statement do not constitute a crime. This decision \nwas not because the case would have been difficult to prove in court \u2013 it was because the facts as set forth in \nthe statement objectively prevent the filing of criminal charges. To be clear, the credibility of the woman, \nwho described the facts in excruciating detail, was never in question.  \nFollowing our review, we confirmed with CUPD that criminal charges were not appropriate based \non Jane Doe\u2019s statement. As is my longstanding policy in cases such as this, we also asked CUPD to inform \nJane Doe, at her option, that we would personally meet with her to explain our decision and answer any of \nher questions. If such a request is made, the police investigator facilitates a meeting with our office.  CUPD \nthereafter explained the results of our review to Jane Doe. As I mentioned, in nearly two years since we \nwere asked to review the case, neither Jane Doe nor her attorneys ever contacted the DA\u2019s Office, not to\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \nseek answers, not to ask for reconsideration of her case, and not to suggest her sworn statement was \ninaccurate. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doe\u2019s attorneys to understand and resolve this discrepancy. \nThe above explanation addresses how we came to the decision that criminal charges in this case \nwere not applicable. It does not explain why criminal charges are not applicable. For that reason, simply \nconcluding my statement at this point would undoubtedly do little to clear up the misperceptions of our \ndecision. To address this problem, I have considered releasing a copy of Jane Doe\u2019s original statement. It \nvery well may be that the statement is publicly available through the proper channels and ultimately will \nhave to be released. I have considered this but decided against it at this stage for at least two reasons. First, \nmy interest at this stage is to explain the decision of my office. This can be accomplished without exposing \nidentifying information of the people involved. Second, a released copy of the statement would have to go \nthrough a privacy review and be heavily redacted. This would prevent me from releasing a timely statement \nand would ultimately result in a statement without context and clarity. For those reasons, I believe it is \nsufficient to provide the relevant facts that went into our decision quoting directly from the statement where \npossible.  My office\u2019s legal analysis of the facts will follow the factual summary.  \nThe following are facts from Jane Doe\u2019s statement that were relevant and determinative to the \nissues of sexual conduct and the legal definition of consent. To be clear, these are not conclusions made \nfrom our review of the statement. They are the facts provided in Jane Doe\u2019s statement. Where words appear \nin quotes, they are exactly as they appear in the statement unless names or pronouns have been redacted or \nadjusted for clarity: \nOn the evening of October 19, 2024, Jane Doe walked the approximately one-mile \ndistance from Lot 10 in the City of Ithaca to the Chi Phi Fraternity at 107 Edgemoor Lane \nto meet her friend Male Number 1. She had made plans to meet Male Number 1 earlier in \nthe week and \u201chad been texting [Male Number 1] that [she] was on the way.\u201d Jane Doe \ndescribed her level of intoxication as a \u201c5 out of 10\u201d when she arrived at the fraternity.\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n5 \nWhile there, Jane Doe opened one previously unopened can of beer. She and Male \nNumber 1 \u201cdanced a little\u201d in a way that \u201cwas definitely flirtatious in nature.\u201d Male \nNumber 1 brought Jane Doe to a \u201cquiet area\u201d and \u201casked how [Jane Doe] would feel \nabout having a threesome with two male partners.\u201d  \nJane Doe \u201cagreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] \ndrunken curiousness.\u201d When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third \nparticipant, Jane Doe \u201cremembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male \nNumber 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.\u201d \nThe three engaged in a \u201cthreesome\u201d involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the \nfraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as \u201c5 or \n6 out of 10\u201d and that she was \u201cpretty ok with having this threesome.\u201d The sexual conduct \nended when Jane Doe \u201cnoticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no \nlonger fully erect.\u201d She told Male Number 2 \u201c[they] needed to stop having sex in order to \nmake sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with \n[Jane Doe].\u201d \nMale Number 1 said \u201che was going to take a nap and refresh himself\u201d and \u201cwould \neventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.\u201d While Male Number 1 slept, \n\u201c[Male Number 2] began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe \u201cbegan to \ntake care of [Male Number 2] by patting his back while also waking [Male Number 1] \nevery few minutes to make sure he was okay.\u201d Jane Doe \u201cwas consoling [Male Number \n2] on the couch and telling him that it was ok if he needed to vomit. [Male Number 2]\ntold [Jane Doe] he was pretty sure he wasn\u2019t going to vomit. Eventually, [Jane Doe and\nMale Number 2] would start making out for a very short amount of time.\u201d While they\nwere making out, \u201c[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times\nand each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.\u201d\nMale Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe \u201cdecided to let him in \nbecause it was his room.\u201d She \u201copened the door\u201d and let Male Number 3 in the room. \nMale Number 3 \u201cintroduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.\u201d \n\u201cWhen [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3\u2019s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled \n[Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing \n[her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].\u201d Eventually, \u201c[Male Number 2, Male \nNumber 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was \nsleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.\u201d  \n\u201c[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up\u201d and \u201csaid he wanted to take part and asked \nabout making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said \u2018Hell No.\u201d Jane Doe rejected this \nrequest \u201cbecause [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in \nanal sex.\u201d Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room.  \nA group of other men \u2013 later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male \nNumber 6 and Male Number 7 \u2013 then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n6 \nthe bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the \ncorner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.  \nJane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next. She remembered \n\u201c[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].\u201d Male Number 7 \napologized and \u201cgrabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].\u201d Jane Doe \u201cquickly backed \naway to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].\u201d \nMale Number 2 \u201casked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.\u201d At that, Jane \nDoe remembered \u201cthat [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male \nNumber 1 and Male Number 2] during this night\u201d but she could not remember \u201cwhere or \nwhen that took place.\u201d  \nJane Doe thought that she \u201chad already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second \ntime.\u201d \u201cAt that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, \nimplying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a \nheavy amount of Ketamine.\u201d Jane Doe was under the covers of the bed at that point and \n\u201c[Male Number 2] got under the covers with [her], where he again tried reaching for the \narea of [her] vagina.\u201d  \nThe males began complimenting Jane Doe and \u201ctalking about how pretty [she] was.\u201d \nMale Number 4 \u201casked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.\u201d \nJane Doe responded, \u201cSure.\u201d While the men were doing drugs off of her body, \u201c[Male \nNumber 3] and [another male] entered the room and said something like, \u2018Ok we\u2019re \nshutting down whatever the f*** this is.\u201d Jane Doe felt dizzy due to a pre-existing \nmedical condition causing dizziness combined with the effects of the Ketamine use. Male \n5 or 6 (who apparently have the same first name) \u201cencouraged [her] to stay seated as long \nas [she] needed.\u201d  \nEventually, \u201c[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room \nbrought [her] upstairs to a small room.\u201d Male Number 1 stated, \u201cLet\u2019s do more \nKetamine.\u201d Jane Doe \u201cremembered snorting more Ketamine\u201d and \u201cremembered feeling \nextremely high.\u201d Male Number 1 \u201csaid he wanted to have sex again because he wanted \nredemption for passing out earlier in the night.\u201d Jane Doe initially stated that she was \ntired and asked Male Number 1, \u201cWhat happened to just you and me?\u201d Jane Doe could \nnot remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 \nand Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. She described her level of \nintoxication as \u201c8 out of 10\u201d at this point. \u201cThe threesome continued until at some point, \naround 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both \nguys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.\u201d \n*******\n\n--- Page 7 ---\n7 \nAs I stated earlier, the above facts are not conclusions made by our office. The above facts were \nprovided directly from Jane Doe\u2019s statement and we assumed them to be true for purposes of our legal \nanalysis below.  \nLegal Analysis:   \nUnder New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a \nreasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, \nlack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, \n3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed\nthat she did not consent to the act.  See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05. \nUnder New York State Law, \u201cforcible compulsion\u201d requires proof of the use of physical force to \ncompel someone to engage in sexual conduct.  The facts provided by Jane Doe\u2019s statement do not allege \nthat any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.  \nUnder New York State Law, \u201cmental incapacitation\u201d occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of \ncontrolling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by \nJane Doe\u2019s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or \nthat any drug was administered to her without her consent. \nUnder New York State Law, \u201cphysical helplessness\u201d occurs when a victim is unconscious or \nphysically unable to communicate unwillingness to act. The facts provided by Jane Doe\u2019s statement do not \nallege that she was rendered unconscious. While the statement unquestionably describes excessive and \nillegal drug use by multiple participants and the effects on those participants such as falling asleep (of Male \nNumber 1), dry heaving (of Male Number 2), and dizziness (of Jane Doe), there is no evidence in the \nstatement that Jane Doe was unconsciousness or unable to communicate. (The failure to remember certain \nevents days later is not sufficient evidence of unconsciousness at the time.)\n\n--- Page 8 ---\n8 \nFinally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe\u2019s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she \ndid not consent to the act. According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, \nthe sexual conduct stopped. Thus, with no evidence of a \u201clack of consent,\u201d criminal charges simply could \nnot be sustained. To instruct otherwise would have been to violate my prosecutorial obligations under New \nYork State Law.   \nWhile the behavior of certain Chi Phi fraternity members was without question disgusting and \nmorally reprehensible, the foundation of the criminal justice system is that criminal prosecutions must be \nbased upon evidence and not emotion.  As the elected District Attorney, I am personally responsible for the \ndecisions made by my office.  The decision made in November of 2024 that the evidence did not support the \nfiling of criminal charges was legally correct.  Individuals who are accused of committing a crime must be \nprosecuted based upon evidence and not public opinion, especially not public opinion based upon false \ninformation.  However, recognizing that the process of healing from trauma is personal and different for \nevery human, my office has reopened this investigation as described below.  \nRe-opening the Investigation: \nOne of the hardest but most important parts of a prosecutor\u2019s job is being constrained to consider \nonly the admissible evidence and information provided by a victim and to strictly apply those facts to the \napplicable laws. It is my responsibility to seek justice. At the same time, I recognize the reality that it can \ntake years of therapy and healing for victims of sexual assaults to fully process and understand what \nhappened to them.  Seeking justice sometimes requires us to reconsider or reopen cases when we are \nprovided with additional evidence. That process obviously works better when the additional information \ncomes directly from a witness, his or her representative, or the police rather than through allegations set \nforth in a civil lawsuit, but getting to the truth is the goal in this case.\n\n--- Page 9 ---\n9 \nI have been asked by the community to revisit the decision whether to pursue criminal charges \nagainst the seven fraternity members. I have already begun that process, starting with our conversation with \nJane Doe and her attorneys. Once we determine the appropriate charges, the case will be prosecuted in the \nmost objective and impartial means available \u2013 by testimony to the Tompkins County Grand Jury. I have \nasked a senior prosecutor from my office to prepare the case for Grand Jury presentation; a woman who has \nsignificant experience in prosecuting sex crimes and has conducted jury trials involving the sexual assault of \ncollege students by college students.  The Grand Jury will be able to consider the testimony of Jane Doe as \nwell as any new evidence raised by the allegations of the civil complaint. Upon a vote by the Grand Jury to \nindict any or all of the individuals involved, this office will prosecute the charges zealously and to the \nfullest extent of the law.   \n******************************","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nTompkins County \nDISTRICT ATTORNEY\nMatthew Van Houten \n320 North Tioga Street \nTel: (607) 274-5461 \nDistrict Attorney \nIthaca, New York 14850 \nFax: (607) 274-5429 \n\u201cInclusion Through Diversity\u201d \n1 \nSeptember 28, 2026 \nPRESS RELEASE / FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE \n================================================ \nStatement regarding Jane Doe v. Cornell University, et al \nOn September 18, 2026, I learned of the civil complaint filed in New York County Court alleging a \nseries of heinous and despicable acts committed by members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University \nagainst a fellow Cornell student on October 19, 2024. The lawsuit, which has been published and widely \ndiscussed online, sets forth allegations of multiple sexual assaults committed by male fraternity members \nagainst a woman who is referred to as Jane Doe. Given the lawsuit\u2019s graphic allegations of criminal \nconduct, the question of why those individuals were not criminally prosecuted has been raised. Over the \npast two weeks, many people have called my office, left voicemails, and sent emails about this case. Some \npeople have understandably sought answers. Others have simply insulted and sometimes threatened my \noffice and my staff. In each case, the comments and questions have been based solely on the allegations in \nthe civil lawsuit and its characterization by news and social media sources.  \nWhile I generally refrain from commenting publicly on criminal investigations, the community \noutrage stemming from the incomplete news and social media coverage requires that I provide an answer to \nwhy the investigation resulted in a lack of criminal charges. Before I discuss the specific facts and reasons \nthat went into this decision, I want to provide the answer in the most basic and understandable form:\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \nJane Doe\u2019s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against \nher will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe\u2019s statement described her participation in drug use \nand sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could \nnot have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be \nfiled until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doe\u2019s attorneys. \nNot to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. \nRather, I reached out to Jane Doe\u2019s attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the \ndiscrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit\u2019s allegations and the proper path forward \nin light of the lawsuit\u2019s allegations. \nThe primary obligation of the District Attorney\u2019s Office is to prosecute state criminal offenses by \nreviewing police evidence, presenting cases to the Grand Jury, and litigating cases in court. While the \nDistrict Attorney\u2019s Office is often called upon to provide investigation support to police agencies, we do not \nconduct parallel independent investigations of cases alongside police investigations. The police investigate \ncrimes. The District Attorney\u2019s Office prosecutes crimes. \nIn November of 2024, the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) informed the DA\u2019s Office \nof their investigation in this case and asked us to review a statement provided by Jane Doe to determine if \nher allegations constituted a crime under New York law. Law enforcement agencies commonly consult with \nus on questions of evidence, matters of law, and potential charges, if any. \nIn November of 2024, the Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) asked the District \nAttorney\u2019s Office to review a statement provided by Jane Doe. This is not unusual. It is common practice \nfor law enforcement agencies to consult with the DA\u2019s Office when investigations involve significant or \nlegally technical matters such as those involving allegations of sexual conduct and questions about the legal \ndefinition of \u201clack of consent.\u201d  \nIn this case, Jane Doe provided a six-page, single spaced, typewritten statement to the Cornell \nUniversity Police Department. Jane Doe made more than twenty hand-written notations to the six-page \ndocument. The signature page of the statement contains the following language: \u201cI have read this statement \nconsisting of 6 pages and the facts contained herein are true and correct.  I understand that making a false\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \nwritten statement is punishable as a class A Misdemeanor pursuant to \u00a7210.45 of the Penal Law of the State \nof New York.\u201d  As I explain further below, the statement \u2013 especially as it relates to the legal definition of \n\u201clack of consent\u201d \u2013 provides a different narrative and set of facts of the events of October 19, 2024 than \nthose alleged in the lawsuit. But first, let me explain more about the review process. \nIn cases where a voluntary sworn statement is provided, the first step of a review is to determine \nwhether the facts alleged in the statement constitute a crime or crimes. For purposes of this stage of review, \nthe allegations are assumed to be true. If the allegations do not set forth the elements of criminal conduct \nunder the New York State Penal Law even if we assume them to be true, we obviously cannot advise the \npolice that criminal charges are appropriate. Furthermore, we obviously do not advise the police to change \nthe facts or to get a witness to change his or her statement so that someone can be charged with a crime.  It \ngoes without saying that doing so would be blatantly improper and unethical.   \nIn this case, multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe\u2019s statement and \ncorrectly determined the alleged facts as set forth in the statement do not constitute a crime. This decision \nwas not because the case would have been difficult to prove in court \u2013 it was because the facts as set forth in \nthe statement objectively prevent the filing of criminal charges. To be clear, the credibility of the woman, \nwho described the facts in excruciating detail, was never in question.  \nFollowing our review, we confirmed with CUPD that criminal charges were not appropriate based \non Jane Doe\u2019s statement. As is my longstanding policy in cases such as this, we also asked CUPD to inform \nJane Doe, at her option, that we would personally meet with her to explain our decision and answer any of \nher questions. If such a request is made, the police investigator facilitates a meeting with our office.  CUPD \nthereafter explained the results of our review to Jane Doe. As I mentioned, in nearly two years since we \nwere asked to review the case, neither Jane Doe nor her attorneys ever contacted the DA\u2019s Office, not to\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \nseek answers, not to ask for reconsideration of her case, and not to suggest her sworn statement was \ninaccurate. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doe\u2019s attorneys to understand and resolve this discrepancy. \nThe above explanation addresses how we came to the decision that criminal charges in this case \nwere not applicable. It does not explain why criminal charges are not applicable. For that reason, simply \nconcluding my statement at this point would undoubtedly do little to clear up the misperceptions of our \ndecision. To address this problem, I have considered releasing a copy of Jane Doe\u2019s original statement. It \nvery well may be that the statement is publicly available through the proper channels and ultimately will \nhave to be released. I have considered this but decided against it at this stage for at least two reasons. First, \nmy interest at this stage is to explain the decision of my office. This can be accomplished without exposing \nidentifying information of the people involved. Second, a released copy of the statement would have to go \nthrough a privacy review and be heavily redacted. This would prevent me from releasing a timely statement \nand would ultimately result in a statement without context and clarity. For those reasons, I believe it is \nsufficient to provide the relevant facts that went into our decision quoting directly from the statement where \npossible.  My office\u2019s legal analysis of the facts will follow the factual summary.  \nThe following are facts from Jane Doe\u2019s statement that were relevant and determinative to the \nissues of sexual conduct and the legal definition of consent. To be clear, these are not conclusions made \nfrom our review of the statement. They are the facts provided in Jane Doe\u2019s statement. Where words appear \nin quotes, they are exactly as they appear in the statement unless names or pronouns have been redacted or \nadjusted for clarity: \nOn the evening of October 19, 2024, Jane Doe walked the approximately one-mile \ndistance from Lot 10 in the City of Ithaca to the Chi Phi Fraternity at 107 Edgemoor Lane \nto meet her friend Male Number 1. She had made plans to meet Male Number 1 earlier in \nthe week and \u201chad been texting [Male Number 1] that [she] was on the way.\u201d Jane Doe \ndescribed her level of intoxication as a \u201c5 out of 10\u201d when she arrived at the fraternity.\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n5 \nWhile there, Jane Doe opened one previously unopened can of beer. She and Male \nNumber 1 \u201cdanced a little\u201d in a way that \u201cwas definitely flirtatious in nature.\u201d Male \nNumber 1 brought Jane Doe to a \u201cquiet area\u201d and \u201casked how [Jane Doe] would feel \nabout having a threesome with two male partners.\u201d  \nJane Doe \u201cagreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] \ndrunken curiousness.\u201d When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third \nparticipant, Jane Doe \u201cremembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male \nNumber 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.\u201d \nThe three engaged in a \u201cthreesome\u201d involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the \nfraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as \u201c5 or \n6 out of 10\u201d and that she was \u201cpretty ok with having this threesome.\u201d The sexual conduct \nended when Jane Doe \u201cnoticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no \nlonger fully erect.\u201d She told Male Number 2 \u201c[they] needed to stop having sex in order to \nmake sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with \n[Jane Doe].\u201d \nMale Number 1 said \u201che was going to take a nap and refresh himself\u201d and \u201cwould \neventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.\u201d While Male Number 1 slept, \n\u201c[Male Number 2] began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe \u201cbegan to \ntake care of [Male Number 2] by patting his back while also waking [Male Number 1] \nevery few minutes to make sure he was okay.\u201d Jane Doe \u201cwas consoling [Male Number \n2] on the couch and telling him that it was ok if he needed to vomit. [Male Number 2]\ntold [Jane Doe] he was pretty sure he wasn\u2019t going to vomit. Eventually, [Jane Doe and\nMale Number 2] would start making out for a very short amount of time.\u201d While they\nwere making out, \u201c[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times\nand each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.\u201d\nMale Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe \u201cdecided to let him in \nbecause it was his room.\u201d She \u201copened the door\u201d and let Male Number 3 in the room. \nMale Number 3 \u201cintroduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.\u201d \n\u201cWhen [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3\u2019s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled \n[Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing \n[her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].\u201d Eventually, \u201c[Male Number 2, Male \nNumber 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was \nsleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.\u201d  \n\u201c[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up\u201d and \u201csaid he wanted to take part and asked \nabout making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said \u2018Hell No.\u201d Jane Doe rejected this \nrequest \u201cbecause [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in \nanal sex.\u201d Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room.  \nA group of other men \u2013 later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male \nNumber 6 and Male Number 7 \u2013 then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n6 \nthe bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the \ncorner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.  \nJane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next. She remembered \n\u201c[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].\u201d Male Number 7 \napologized and \u201cgrabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].\u201d Jane Doe \u201cquickly backed \naway to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].\u201d \nMale Number 2 \u201casked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.\u201d At that, Jane \nDoe remembered \u201cthat [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male \nNumber 1 and Male Number 2] during this night\u201d but she could not remember \u201cwhere or \nwhen that took place.\u201d  \nJane Doe thought that she \u201chad already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second \ntime.\u201d \u201cAt that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, \nimplying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a \nheavy amount of Ketamine.\u201d Jane Doe was under the covers of the bed at that point and \n\u201c[Male Number 2] got under the covers with [her], where he again tried reaching for the \narea of [her] vagina.\u201d  \nThe males began complimenting Jane Doe and \u201ctalking about how pretty [she] was.\u201d \nMale Number 4 \u201casked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.\u201d \nJane Doe responded, \u201cSure.\u201d While the men were doing drugs off of her body, \u201c[Male \nNumber 3] and [another male] entered the room and said something like, \u2018Ok we\u2019re \nshutting down whatever the f*** this is.\u201d Jane Doe felt dizzy due to a pre-existing \nmedical condition causing dizziness combined with the effects of the Ketamine use. Male \n5 or 6 (who apparently have the same first name) \u201cencouraged [her] to stay seated as long \nas [she] needed.\u201d  \nEventually, \u201c[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room \nbrought [her] upstairs to a small room.\u201d Male Number 1 stated, \u201cLet\u2019s do more \nKetamine.\u201d Jane Doe \u201cremembered snorting more Ketamine\u201d and \u201cremembered feeling \nextremely high.\u201d Male Number 1 \u201csaid he wanted to have sex again because he wanted \nredemption for passing out earlier in the night.\u201d Jane Doe initially stated that she was \ntired and asked Male Number 1, \u201cWhat happened to just you and me?\u201d Jane Doe could \nnot remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 \nand Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. She described her level of \nintoxication as \u201c8 out of 10\u201d at this point. \u201cThe threesome continued until at some point, \naround 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both \nguys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.\u201d \n*******\n\n--- Page 7 ---\n7 \nAs I stated earlier, the above facts are not conclusions made by our office. The above facts were \nprovided directly from Jane Doe\u2019s statement and we assumed them to be true for purposes of our legal \nanalysis below.  \nLegal Analysis:   \nUnder New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a \nreasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, \nlack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, \n3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed\nthat she did not consent to the act.  See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05. \nUnder New York State Law, \u201cforcible compulsion\u201d requires proof of the use of physical force to \ncompel someone to engage in sexual conduct.  The facts provided by Jane Doe\u2019s statement do not allege \nthat any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.  \nUnder New York State Law, \u201cmental incapacitation\u201d occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of \ncontrolling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by \nJane Doe\u2019s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or \nthat any drug was administered to her without her consent. \nUnder New York State Law, \u201cphysical helplessness\u201d occurs when a victim is unconscious or \nphysically unable to communicate unwillingness to act. The facts provided by Jane Doe\u2019s statement do not \nallege that she was rendered unconscious. While the statement unquestionably describes excessive and \nillegal drug use by multiple participants and the effects on those participants such as falling asleep (of Male \nNumber 1), dry heaving (of Male Number 2), and dizziness (of Jane Doe), there is no evidence in the \nstatement that Jane Doe was unconsciousness or unable to communicate. (The failure to remember certain \nevents days later is not sufficient evidence of unconsciousness at the time.)\n\n--- Page 8 ---\n8 \nFinally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe\u2019s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she \ndid not consent to the act. According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, \nthe sexual conduct stopped. Thus, with no evidence of a \u201clack of consent,\u201d criminal charges simply could \nnot be sustained. To instruct otherwise would have been to violate my prosecutorial obligations under New \nYork State Law.   \nWhile the behavior of certain Chi Phi fraternity members was without question disgusting and \nmorally reprehensible, the foundation of the criminal justice system is that criminal prosecutions must be \nbased upon evidence and not emotion.  As the elected District Attorney, I am personally responsible for the \ndecisions made by my office.  The decision made in November of 2024 that the evidence did not support the \nfiling of criminal charges was legally correct.  Individuals who are accused of committing a crime must be \nprosecuted based upon evidence and not public opinion, especially not public opinion based upon false \ninformation.  However, recognizing that the process of healing from trauma is personal and different for \nevery human, my office has reopened this investigation as described below.  \nRe-opening the Investigation: \nOne of the hardest but most important parts of a prosecutor\u2019s job is being constrained to consider \nonly the admissible evidence and information provided by a victim and to strictly apply those facts to the \napplicable laws. It is my responsibility to seek justice. At the same time, I recognize the reality that it can \ntake years of therapy and healing for victims of sexual assaults to fully process and understand what \nhappened to them.  Seeking justice sometimes requires us to reconsider or reopen cases when we are \nprovided with additional evidence. That process obviously works better when the additional information \ncomes directly from a witness, his or her representative, or the police rather than through allegations set \nforth in a civil lawsuit, but getting to the truth is the goal in this case.\n\n--- Page 9 ---\n9 \nI have been asked by the community to revisit the decision whether to pursue criminal charges \nagainst the seven fraternity members. I have already begun that process, starting with our conversation with \nJane Doe and her attorneys. Once we determine the appropriate charges, the case will be prosecuted in the \nmost objective and impartial means available \u2013 by testimony to the Tompkins County Grand Jury. I have \nasked a senior prosecutor from my office to prepare the case for Grand Jury presentation; a woman who has \nsignificant experience in prosecuting sex crimes and has conducted jury trials involving the sexual assault of \ncollege students by college students.  The Grand Jury will be able to consider the testimony of Jane Doe as \nwell as any new evidence raised by the allegations of the civil complaint. Upon a vote by the Grand Jury to \nindict any or all of the individuals involved, this office will prosecute the charges zealously and to the \nfullest extent of the law.   \n******************************","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/9/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/9"}