Full Breakdown
Cornell Fraternity Investigation Reopened After Civil Lawsuit
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten announced on September 28, 2026 that his office will reopen the criminal investigation into an alleged gang-rape at Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity house on October 19, 2024. The decision follows a September 16 civil lawsuit filed by a former student, identified only as Jane Doe, who alleges she was drugged, incapacitated and sexually assaulted by seven fraternity members. Van Houten said the case will be presented to a Tompkins County grand jury for possible indictment.
Background & Context
The incident was first reported to Cornell University Police on November 8, 2024. Doe’s sworn statement described the activity as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual,” leading the district attorney’s office to close the case in 2024 for lack of evidence.
Doe’s attorney Thomas P. Giuffra filed a 101-page civil complaint on September 16, naming the seven fraternity members—Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar—as well as Cornell, the Chi Phi national organization, a local sorority and an Ithaca nightclub. The complaint alleges the men pressured Doe to snort ketamine and used a Snapchat group chat to coordinate the assault, and it criticizes the university’s response.
Cornell’s administration issued a statement on September 21 supporting the grand-jury review and defending its Title IX investigation, which resulted in expulsions and suspensions. The Chi Phi chapter remains barred from campus.
Data & Statistics
- Seven fraternity members are named in the lawsuit.
- The alleged assault began around 1:42 a.m. on October 19, 2024 and continued until about 5:45 a.m. the next morning.
- Cornell’s disciplinary panel expelled two students; the other five received temporary suspensions, workshops or essay assignments.
- No criminal charges were filed in 2024; the district attorney now seeks a grand-jury decision within roughly 45 days.
Official Statements & Responses
Van Houten said the original police statement did not allege drugging or lack of consent, which under New York law does not meet the definition of “inability to consent.” He noted the new civil complaint presents “dramatically different” allegations that merit re-examination.
Cornell reiterated that its Title IX process was “thorough” and that sanctions were “consequential,” disputing claims that essays were the sole consequence for any student.
Giuffra criticized the original investigation, arguing Doe was never interviewed by a specialist and that Snapchat messages were not pursued.
Criticism & Opposition
Giuffra contended the district attorney’s reliance on the initial police report ignored the Snapchat evidence. Former prosecutor Nana Knight echoed this concern, saying the DA’s deference to another agency’s investigation “raises questions about due diligence.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Consent Narrative: Van Houten maintains Doe’s 2024 statement described consensual activity; the lawsuit alleges she was drugged and unable to consent.
- Snapchat Evidence: The district attorney says the group-chat screenshots were never provided to his office; Giuffra and Knight assert they were supplied to Cornell Police in 2024.
- University Discipline: The lawsuit claims some defendants avoided severe punishment by submitting essays, whereas Cornell asserts no essays were used as a sole sanction.
What’s Next
Van Houten indicated his office will meet with Doe and her attorneys to establish a rapport before the grand-jury hearing this fall. He expects the grand jury to consider both the original police statement and the new evidence outlined in the civil complaint.