A former Cornell student, using the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” sued members of the Chi Phi fraternity over rape claims. New York Supreme Court Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond permitted Doe to continue using this pseudonym. Doe argued that revealing her identity could bring retribution, impact her social life and career, and bring shame to her family. Her concerns included potential danger to her family and the mental strain she already experiences.
The defendants did not contest Doe’s request to maintain her anonymity. Justice Perry-Bond noted that Doe’s privacy interests surpassed the typical expectation of public court proceedings, considering the case’s high profile and reports of threats related to the case.
Importantly, the judge warned that harassment or threats towards Doe or anyone associated with the case could be a federal crime, subject to prosecution. By granting Doe anonymity, the public can still access the case details without needing more restrictive measures like sealing records or closing court sessions.
Though Doe remains anonymous, defendants named in the lawsuit continue to be identified in documents. Justice Perry-Bond suggested protecting sensitive personal information—such as addresses and contact details—of the defendants and invited the parties to discuss extending these protections further.
Doe’s lawsuit, filed in September, accuses seven former fraternity members of drugging and raping her in October 2024. The lawsuit also names the fraternity, the university, and the bar she visited that night. She claims to have been pressured into taking drugs at the fraternity house. The accused deny any wrongdoing, with differing accounts of the events.
The fraternity was suspended on the same day Doe reported the allegations to campus police. The local prosecutor initially decided against criminal charges, citing Doe’s earlier sworn statement where she described her participation as voluntary and consensual. However, CBS New York obtained transcripts from police interviews later that contradicted this statement, prompting a reopening of the investigation by the prosecutor’s office.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul replaced the local prosecutor with State Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor due to concerns over the original prosecutor’s judgment. James’ appointment faced challenges from defendants alleging bias on her part, following a controversial social media post.
Despite requests to disqualify her from some court proceedings, James defended her appointment, arguing the governor’s authority in such matters. The case continues to unfold amidst these legal proceedings and public interest.