Attorney says Jane Doe was misled about Cornell criminal investigation

Cornell publicly described its police investigation as continuing after the Tompkins County district attorney had reportedly decided against prosecution, raising questions about what the accuser was told and whether additional evidence received meaningful review.

By Life in Ithaca Staff | October 8, 2026

ITHACA, N.Y. — The attorney representing the former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe says his client was led to believe that campus police were still investigating her sexual-assault allegations after the Tompkins County district attorney had already decided not to pursue criminal charges.

Attorney Thomas Giuffra told The Associated Press that Jane Doe understood prosecutors would not immediately bring a case but believed Cornell University Police were continuing to gather evidence.

Giuffra said he had the same understanding.

“I thought they were still investigating,” he told the AP. “It was news to me that they weren’t doing anything.”

Cornell declined to answer the AP’s questions on behalf of its police department, citing pending litigation. No publicly available email, victim-notification document or police case-closing report has yet established precisely what CUPD told Jane Doe.

The allegation adds another layer to questions about how Cornell police and the district attorney’s office communicated with each other—and with Jane Doe—during the first weeks of the investigation.

Cornell publicly said the investigation continued

Jane Doe reported the alleged October 2024 assault to Cornell police the following month and participated in extensive interviews on Nov. 14 and 15. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says his office reviewed a six-page sworn statement generated from those interviews and decided within days that the conduct described did not support criminal charges.

Van Houten says prosecutors asked CUPD to notify Jane Doe of that decision and tell her that she could meet with the district attorney’s office if she wanted an explanation. Neither Jane Doe nor her attorneys contacted his office during the following two years, he said in a Sept. 28 public statement.

But Cornell’s own public messaging suggested that police work remained underway.

On Nov. 26, 2024—after prosecutors had reportedly declined the case—the university issued a statement saying CUPD “continues to pursue its criminal investigation,” according to an ABC News timeline.

That statement supports Giuffra’s contention that Jane Doe had reason to believe the case remained active. It does not, by itself, establish that CUPD deliberately misrepresented the case’s status.

Police can continue collecting evidence after a prosecutor declines to file charges, and a prosecutor can reconsider a decision if new evidence emerges. The unresolved question is whether CUPD clearly explained that distinction—or instead left Jane Doe believing an active investigation was likely to receive further prosecutorial review.

Additional evidence was apparently available

Documents reported by The New York Times and described by CNN indicate that a Cornell police investigator contacted the district attorney’s office on Nov. 25, 2024 about additional interviews and messages.

According to a police note cited in that reporting, prosecutors declined to examine more material because they had already decided, based on Jane Doe’s six-page statement, that criminal charges would not be pursued.

CNN subsequently reviewed draft letters in which CUPD asked Verizon and T-Mobile to preserve records that might contain evidence pertinent to what the letters called an ongoing sexual-assault investigation. The letters were reportedly prepared roughly a week after Jane Doe’s report.

It remains unclear whether CUPD sent the letters, obtained warrants or subpoenas, received the requested records or informed prosecutors about the preservation effort. CNN reported that Giuffra does not believe any resulting phone evidence reached the district attorney.

Those records suggest Cornell police undertook at least some investigative activity after the initial interviews. They also raise a consequential question: If CUPD considered the investigation active, why was the district attorney apparently treating his decision as final?

A dispute over what prosecutors actually reviewed

Van Houten has defended the original decision. He said multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe’s six-page sworn statement and concluded that the facts it contained did not establish a crime under New York law.

His public statement characterized Jane Doe’s participation in drug use and some sexual activity as voluntary, conscious and consensual. He said she described refusing certain proposed acts and that those refusals were respected.

Giuffra disputes that characterization. He says the six-page document omitted or failed to convey important portions of Jane Doe’s longer interview, including her statement that she was certain she had been raped.

NPR reported that Giuffra confirmed Jane Doe made that statement during her 2024 interview. ABC News, which obtained the full statement, reported that she described parts of the encounter as coercive and said her intoxication left her unable to make decisions.

The civil lawsuit Jane Doe filed in September contains additional allegations and evidence developed after the initial police statement. It alleges that fraternity members drugged and sexually assaulted her at the Chi Phi house. Those allegations have not been proven in court.

Cornell’s later Title IX inquiry was substantially broader than the material initially reviewed by prosecutors. According to records reviewed by the AP, the university conducted 50 interviews with 32 witnesses and held 12 days of hearings. The records reflect sharply conflicting accounts about consent and individual involvement.

Lawyers for some of the accused men have denied that their clients committed sexual assault. No criminal charges have been announced.

New York’s criminal standard

New York’s criminal law concerning intoxication and consent is narrower than many university misconduct policies.

The state defines “mental incapacitation” as an inability to understand or control one’s conduct because of an intoxicating substance administered without consent. “Physical helplessness” generally means unconsciousness or an inability to communicate unwillingness. New York Penal Law §130.00

Those definitions formed part of Van Houten’s explanation for declining charges. But intoxication is not the only possible legal issue. State law also recognizes forcible compulsion, non-acquiescence for certain sexual offenses and clearly expressed non-consent under specified third-degree rape provisions. New York Penal Law §130.05

Determining whether any criminal provision applies requires evaluating the complete evidence, not only Jane Doe’s level of intoxication.

State investigation now underway

Gov. Kathy Hochul has removed the renewed criminal investigation from Van Houten and appointed Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor.

James said her office would conduct an investigation guided by the facts and the law, adding that people who report crimes deserve a process that is full and fair. New York Attorney General’s Office

Separately, a special committee of Cornell’s Board of Trustees has retained former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to review the university’s sexual-misconduct procedures and its response to Jane Doe’s allegations. Cornell says that review will examine its Title IX process, campus police response and compliance with federal and state requirements. Cornell University

Neither appointment establishes that CUPD, the district attorney or any accused student committed wrongdoing. Both reviews, however, reflect widening concern about how the allegations were handled.

At the center of the inquiry is a relatively simple factual question: What, exactly, was Jane Doe told after prosecutors declined the case?

Until CUPD’s communications and case-status records are produced, it may be impossible to determine whether she was deliberately misled, given an incomplete explanation or caught between a police investigation that remained nominally open and a prosecutor who had already decided there was nothing more to investigate.