Judge Allows Former Cornell Student to Keep Pseudonym in Civil Case
A judge has permitted a former Cornell student, referred to as “Jane Doe,” to continue using this pseudonym in her lawsuit against members of the Chi Phi fraternity over rape allegations.
Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond of the New York Supreme Court noted in a ruling on Friday that Doe had presented her case effectively, arguing that revealing her identity might expose her to “retribution and retaliation.” She expressed concerns that such exposure could have negative impacts on her social interactions and career while also bringing shame to her family.
Doe conveyed her fears in court about the potential risk to her family’s safety, sharing that she has been dealing with significant anxiety, depression, and insomnia as a result of these events. Interestingly, none of the defendants challenged her request to maintain her anonymity, according to the ruling.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Doe’s right to privacy took precedence over the typical expectation of public court proceedings. This decision was motivated, in part, by the “notoriety of the allegations” and ongoing threats against people involved in the case.
In an uncommon step, Perry-Bond included a statement in her order warning that any harassment or threats directed at Doe, the defendants, or their attorneys could lead to federal charges.
She also stated that allowing Doe to remain anonymous would keep the case accessible to the public without resorting to more severe methods, such as sealing court documents or closing the courtroom. While Doe’s identity will be protected, the named defendants will still be identifiable in the court filings.
Doe filed her lawsuit in September, alleging that seven men from the Chi Phi fraternity drugged and sexually assaulted her on the night of October 19, 2024. The lawsuit also names the fraternity, the university, and the bar she visited that evening.
According to her claims, she was already under the influence of alcohol when she arrived at the fraternity house, where she alleges the men pressured her into consuming ketamine and other substances. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing, with some asserting that any sexual encounters were consensual.
The fraternity was suspended on November 8, 2024, right after Doe reported the allegations to campus police, as stated in her civil complaint. Local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten initially decided not to pursue criminal charges, stating that Doe’s sworn statement from November 2024 did not indicate that she was drugged against her will or raped by force. He claimed that her description of her involvement suggested that it was “voluntary, conscious, and consensual.”
However, a later release of transcripts from police interviews revealed Doe stating, “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”
Van Houten also mentioned that he had not received this full interview transcript. Recently, he announced plans to reopen the investigation after discrepancies surfaced between Doe’s lawsuit and her earlier sworn statements.
Following Van Houten’s change of course, New York Governor Kathy Hochul removed him from the case, citing a lack of confidence in his decisions. She appointed state Attorney General Letitia James as the special prosecutor, a move that sparked some controversy. Defendants have requested her removal, arguing that her previous social media posts demonstrated bias in favor of Doe.
On Thursday, James responded in court, stating that the defendants lacked standing in their objections and asserting that the governor holds the authority to appoint a special prosecutor. Additionally, a motion from one defendant sought to disqualify James from future proceedings, claiming her public comments had compromised the fairness of any ensuing grand jury processes. This matter remains unresolved.
