A judge has allowed the former Cornell student who sued the Chi Phi fraternity members over rape allegations to continue using the pseudonym “Jane Doe.”
New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond, who is presiding over the civil case, said in a Friday order that 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 that she fears being identified would lead to her family being placed in danger, adding that she has “experienced extreme anxiety, depression, and insomnia.”
None of the defendants opposed Doe’s request to continue using a pseudonym, according to the order.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY BANS FRATERNITY PARTIES FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR AFTER SEX ABUSE LAWSUIT
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 “the widespread reports of certain malicious actors’ behavior in attempting to threaten and retaliate against anyone tangentially involved in this case.”
In an unusual move, the judge included a sort of public service announcement in her order, warning that attempts to harass or threaten Doe, the defendants or 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.
CORNELL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE REVIVES SCRUTINY OF A LITTLE-KNOWN NEW YORK LAW ON INTOXICATED VICTIMS
However, Perry-Bond 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 other people 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 Oct. 19, 2024, and into the next morning.
The complaint also names the fraternity itself, the university, and the bar Doe went to the night of the alleged gang rape.
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, with some saying any sexual activity was consensual and others denying they were involved.
The fraternity was suspended on Nov. 8, 2024, the same day Doe reported sexual assault allegations to campus police, according to Doe’s civil complaint.
Local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten, who intially 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, Van Houten said, described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.”
However, CBS New York later obtained the transcript of the Cornell police interviews with Doe on Nov. 14 and 15, 2024, during 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 allegations made in Doe’s lawsuit differed 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.