Cornell Rape Accuser May Remain Jane Doe; Judge Warns Federal Charges

A former Cornell University student who filed a civil lawsuit against members of the Chi Phi fraternity over rape allegations may continue identifying herself as “Jane Doe,” a judge has ruled.

New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond, who is overseeing the case, said in a Friday order that Doe feared publicly revealing her identity could expose her to retaliation, damage her social and professional life, and bring shame to her family.

Doe also told the court that identifying her could put her relatives at risk. She said the ordeal has caused “extreme anxiety, depression, and insomnia.”

According to the judge’s order, none of the defendants objected to Doe’s request to remain anonymous.

Perry-Bond concluded that Doe’s privacy interests outweighed the usual legal presumption favoring open court proceedings. She pointed to “the notoriety of the allegations” and “widespread reports of certain malicious actors’ behavior” involving threats and retaliation against people connected, even indirectly, to the case.

The judge also issued an unusual warning, saying that efforts to harass or threaten Doe, the defendants or their attorneys could amount to a federal crime and result in prosecution.

Allowing Doe to proceed under a pseudonym, Perry-Bond wrote, protects her privacy while preserving public access to the lawsuit. More restrictive steps, including sealing the docket or barring the public from the courtroom, will not be necessary.

Doe will remain anonymous in public court records, while the defendants named individually will continue to be identified in filings.

Perry-Bond said safeguards for private details—including home addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses—should also apply to the individually named defendants. She asked the parties to develop an agreement that could extend similar protections to the defendants and possibly others involved in the litigation.

Doe filed the lawsuit in September, alleging that seven former Chi Phi members drugged and raped her beginning on the night of Oct. 19, 2024, and continuing into the following morning.

The complaint also lists the fraternity, Cornell University and the bar Doe visited earlier that night as defendants.

READ MORE: 2 Former FBI Officials Charged With Lying to Congress About Hunter Biden Laptop Investigation

Doe alleges that she was already intoxicated when she arrived at the fraternity house and that the men pressured her to use ketamine and other drugs. The men have denied wrongdoing. Some have maintained that any sexual activity was consensual, while others have denied taking part.

Doe’s complaint says the fraternity was suspended on Nov. 8, 2024—the same day she reported the alleged sexual assault to campus police.

Matthew Van Houten, the local prosecutor who initially declined to bring criminal charges, has said Doe’s sworn statement from November 2024 did not claim that she was drugged without her consent or gang-raped.

Van Houten said that statement characterized her drug use and sexual activity as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.”

But CBS New York later obtained transcripts from Cornell police interviews conducted with Doe on Nov. 14 and 15, 2024. During those interviews, she told investigators, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

Van Houten said he had not received the complete interview transcript. Late last month, he announced that his office was reopening the investigation after comparing the allegations in Doe’s lawsuit with the account contained in her sworn statement nearly two years earlier.

Days after Van Houten reversed course, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul removed him from the case, citing her lack of confidence in his judgment, and appointed state Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor.

James’ appointment has also drawn controversy, with multiple defendants seeking her removal over alleged bias stemming largely from a social media post she made days before her appointment that they argue showed sympathy for Jane Doe.

On Thursday, James filed a response in court, arguing that the defendants have no standing and that even if they did, the governor has the power to appoint a special prosecutor.

A separate motion from another defendant, a former fraternity member, asked the state Supreme Court to disqualify James from any future grand jury proceedings, arguing that her public comments had prejudiced potential grand jurors and undermined the fairness of the process. That matter remains pending.