New York prosecutors have reopened a criminal investigation into a 2024 group sexual assault allegation at Cornell University after a civil lawsuit surfaced containing new evidence, including Snapchat chat logs. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten announced that the case will now proceed before a grand jury, marking a major reversal from the initial 2024 decision not to file criminal charges.
Civil Lawsuit Revives October 2024 Incident at Chi Phi Fraternity
The legal proceedings stem from an incident between the night of October 19 and the early hours of October 20, 2024, inside the Chi Phi fraternity house on the Ithaca campus. According to a 100-page civil complaint filed by the victim—identified under the pseudonym Jane Doe—she was 20 years old at the time when she was allegedly induced to consume high-proof alcohol, marijuana, and ketamine.
The lawsuit details that several fraternity members placed lines of ketamine on her body while she was incapacitated and unable to give consent. Thomas P. Giuffra, attorney for the plaintiff, explained in court documents that his client was trapped in a state of survival trauma following the attack, leaving her initially unable to process the extent of the assault.
New Digital Evidence and Snapchat Group Messages
The catalyst for the criminal reopening is a cache of digital evidence introduced in the civil suit that was absent from the initial university police report. Specifically, the complaint includes screenshots from a Snapchat group chat titled “Chi Phi Actives.”
According to the case file, at 1:42 a.m. during the night in question, a fraternity member sent explicit messages inviting others to join in the ongoing abuse, which court filings state continued until approximately 5:45 a.m. District Attorney Van Houten characterized the language in these messages as completely vulgar and repugnant, establishing the threshold of new material needed to reexamine the case via a grand jury.
Prosecutorial Shift and Grand Jury Review
In late 2024, the Tompkins County District Attorney’s office declined to pursue criminal charges after reviewing the initial preliminary report compiled by university police. Van Houten noted that the original statement provided by the student did not explicitly detail a lack of consent or the forced administration of substances.
However, following the public filing of the civil suit and its accompanying evidence, the prosecution reversed its stance. Van Houten stated that once appropriate charges are determined, the matter will be presented objectively and impartially to a grand jury.
Cornell University Disciplinary Actions and Campus Fallout
Cornell University issued statements confirming that the institution conducted an extensive independent investigation under Title IX following the 2024 incident. Kyle Kimball, vice president of university relations, noted that the process involved a panel of trained faculty and staff who reviewed evidence over multiple days.
The university reported that the Chi Phi fraternity chapter was permanently banned and dissolved from the campus in 2024. Cornell rejected claims that the accused students received minor punishments, confirming that the disciplinary panel handed down direct expulsions and suspensions, and adding that no student was allowed to substitute essays for disciplinary consequences.
The case has triggered broader national discussion regarding campus safety at Ivy League institutions. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez addressed the situation during a public appearance in Ithaca, criticizing institutional cover-ups of sexual violence, while actress Florence Pugh used social media platforms to urge active accountability among men regarding sexual assault prevention.
Legal Defense Positions
Legal representatives for the accused students have pushed back against the criminal and civil allegations. Jeremy Saland, an attorney representing one of the named fraternity members, acknowledged that his client posted an immature comment in the Snapchat group chat but maintained that his client never touched, assaulted, or administered drugs to the plaintiff, emphasizing that the district attorney previously found no grounds for criminal charges against his client.
Worth a look