Judge Grills AG’s Office in Cornell Sex Assault Case Over Bias

A Sullivan County judge heard arguments Thursday over whether New York Attorney General Letitia James should be disqualified as special prosecutor in the reopened criminal investigation into an alleged gang rape at Cornell University.

Judge James Farrell concluded the hearing without issuing an immediate decision.

The proceeding followed a motion filed by defense lawyer Andrew Miltenberg, who represents Gillio Lopes, one of the defendants in the case.

Lopes is among seven former Chi Phi fraternity members named in a lawsuit alleging that they drugged and raped a Cornell student at the fraternity house in October 2024.

Defense attorneys contend that social media posts James made before her formal appointment as special prosecutor reveal an existing bias and suggest she had already presumed the defendants’ guilt, compromising the investigation’s impartiality.

“What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable,” James wrote on social media. “I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers. To her, and to all survivors: you’re not alone. We stand with you.”

Miltenberg told the court that those public expressions of support amounted to evidence that James had already taken a position in the case.

“Whether it affects all or just one, either the court determines the statements made by AG James take her out of contention to be neutral party reviewing case or not,” Miltenberg argued, describing the statements as the case’s “original sin.”

A spokesperson for James’ office said in a statement to Fox News on Thursday that the allegations were unfounded. “As indicated in our motion before the court, these claims are without merit. The Office of the Attorney General remains committed to conducting an investigation guided only by the facts, the evidence, and the law.”

Assistant Attorney General Kaitlin Vigars, arguing for the state, defended Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision to appoint James and opposed the effort to remove her. Vigars maintained that public comments, by themselves, do not satisfy the legal standard for disqualification.

She argued that the defense would need to demonstrate actual prejudice, not merely speculate that James might be biased.

Farrell questioned Vigars at length about the events surrounding James’ appointment. His questions included whether Hochul knew about James’ social media post, whether James was beside the governor when Hochul referred to the “brave young woman,” whether those circumstances raised professional-conduct concerns and whether the attorney general was chosen specifically to avoid bias.

The judge also expressed concern about the broader legal process, warning that separate challenges handled in different jurisdictions could produce conflicting rulings.

“If multiple judges come down with decisions that’s chaos,” Farrell said from the bench. “And the court should not fashion chaos.”

Hochul appointed James special prosecutor on Oct. 1 after intervening to bypass the Tompkins County district attorney, who had previously declined to pursue charges.

Because Farrell did not rule Thursday, a formal written decision is expected in the coming days. The ruling will determine whether James continues as special prosecutor or the investigation is transferred to another official.