Cornell Rape Accuser Can Remain ‘Jane Doe,’ Judge Warns of Charges

A judge has ruled that the former Cornell University student suing members of the Chi Phi fraternity over rape allegations may continue identifying herself in court as “Jane Doe.”

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

Doe further told the court that revealing her identity could place her family at risk. She also said she has suffered “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 presumption of open court proceedings. The judge cited “the notoriety of the allegations” as well as “widespread reports of certain malicious actors’ behavior” involving threats and retaliation against people connected to the case.

In an unusual addition to the ruling, Perry-Bond issued a warning that harassment or threats directed at Doe, the defendants or their attorneys could amount to a federal crime and result in prosecution.

The judge said keeping Doe’s name confidential would protect her privacy while preserving public access to the proceedings. More restrictive steps, including sealing the docket or closing the courtroom, were therefore unnecessary, she wrote.

Doe will remain anonymous in public court records, but the defendants who were individually named in the lawsuit will continue to be identified.

Perry-Bond also said protections covering sensitive information—including home addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses—should apply to the individually named defendants. She asked the parties to consider proposing an agreement that would extend similar safeguards 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 that night as defendants.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Lawyer Faces Accusations of Misrepresenting Indigenous Identity

Doe alleges she was already intoxicated when she reached the fraternity house, where the men pressured her to use ketamine and other substances. The men have denied wrongdoing. Some have said any sexual activity was consensual, while others have denied taking part.

According to Doe’s complaint, 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 had been drugged against her will or gang-raped.

Van Houten said the statement characterized Doe’s drug use and sexual activity as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.”

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

Van Houten said he had not received the complete transcript. Late last month, he announced that his office was reopening the investigation after the allegations in Doe’s lawsuit appeared to differ from those 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.