Cornell Rape Accuser Can Stay 'Jane Doe', Judge Warns Threats Could Bring Federal Charges

A New York judge has ruled that the former Cornell University student who sued members of the Chi Phi fraternity over rape allegations may continue using the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' in the case. In the same order, the judge warned that threatening anyone connected with the case could constitute a federal crime.

New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond is presiding over the civil case. In Friday's order she said Jane Doe had argued that publicly identifying her could expose her to 'retribution and retaliation', hinder her social life and career, and cause shame to her family.

Doe also told the court she fears that being identified would place her family in danger, adding that she has experienced 'extreme anxiety, depression, and insomnia'.

According to the order, none of the defendants opposed Doe's request to continue using a pseudonym.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that Doe's privacy interests outweighed the normal presumption that court proceedings should be fully public, especially given 'the notoriety of the allegations' and widespread reports of malicious actors attempting to threaten and retaliate against anyone tangentially involved in the case.

In an unusual move, the judge included a kind of public service announcement in her order, warning that attempts to harass or threaten Doe, the defendants or the attorneys involved in the case could constitute a federal crime and lead to prosecution.

Perry-Bond also noted that allowing Doe to use a pseudonym would preserve public access to the case without resorting to more restrictive measures, such as sealing the court docket or closing the courtroom.

While Doe will remain anonymous publicly, the individually named defendants will continue to be identified in court filings.

However, the judge said protections for sensitive personal information, such as home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, should also be extended to the individually named defendants. She invited the parties to propose an agreement providing similar protections to defendants and potentially others involved in the case.

Doe filed her lawsuit in September, accusing seven former Chi Phi fraternity members of drugging and raping her on the night of 19 October 2024 and into the following morning.

The complaint also names the fraternity itself, the university, and the bar Doe went to on the night of the alleged assault as defendants.

In the lawsuit, she alleges she was already intoxicated when she arrived at the fraternity house, where the men then pressured her to take ketamine and other substances. The men have denied wrongdoing — some saying any sexual activity was consensual, others denying they were involved at all.

According to Doe's civil complaint, the fraternity was suspended on 8 November 2024, the same day Doe reported the sexual assault allegations to campus police.

Local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten, who initially declined to pursue criminal charges, has said Doe's sworn statement from November 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang-raped. That statement, he said, described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as 'voluntary, conscious, and consensual'.

However, CBS New York later obtained the transcript of Cornell police interviews with Doe on 14 and 15 November 2024, in which she told investigators: 'I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.'

Van Houten said he was never given this full transcript. He announced late last month that his office was reopening the investigation, after the allegations in Doe's lawsuit differed from those in her sworn statement nearly two years earlier.

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

James's appointment has also drawn controversy. Multiple defendants have sought her removal, alleging 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 to make the request, 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.

With the pseudonym ruling delivered, the case now moves toward its next stages. But the judge's warning signals that the court is treating the tension and threats surrounding the case with the utmost seriousness.