Letitia James faces new push to boot her from Cornell rape probe over alleged bias: court documents

Teny Geragos, a lawyer for one accused man, filed a motion asking the Tompkins County court to remove New York Attorney General Letitia James from the criminal investigation. The request matters because James is serving as special prosecutor, so her office may influence whether charges are pursued.

Geragos points to a Sept. 28 social media post by James. James wrote that the accuser’s experience was “horrific and unacceptable” and said she held the woman in her prayers. Geragos argues this language showed James supported the accuser before examining evidence.

The motion also claims Governor Kathy Hochul selected James because of those public statements and expects a particular result. Hochul rejected that suggestion, saying James would examine the facts and record. Another accused man has separately requested James’s removal, also citing alleged bias.

A special prosecutor is a prosecutor assigned to a particular case, often when an independent review is considered necessary. The role matters because it separates the investigation from the ordinary local prosecutor’s office. In this matter, Attorney General Letitia James was appointed to investigate allegations involving a former Cornell student and seven former fraternity members.

The article states that local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten announced the case would be reopened on Sept. 28. Governor Kathy Hochul selected James as special prosecutor. Hochul later said she trusted James to examine the facts, review the record, and reach the proper conclusions.

The article does not give a more specific official reason for James’s appointment. It does show that her selection is now disputed. Defense lawyers argue her public support for the accuser could affect the investigation and any charging decisions.

The disputed statement appeared on James’s social media account on Sept. 28, the same day local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten announced he would reopen the case. James wrote: “What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers.” She added that survivors were not alone.

Geragos uses those words as evidence of possible prejudgment. Her motion argues James expressed support for the accuser before reviewing evidence about the seven men named in the civil lawsuit. Geragos says that could prejudice grand jurors and weaken public confidence in later decisions.

James’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Governor Kathy Hochul defended her appointment, saying James would examine the facts and record before reaching conclusions. Another accused man also cited alleged bias when seeking James’s removal.

The civil lawsuit names seven former members of Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity. The former student at the center of the investigation alleges that the men drugged and raped her at the fraternity house on the night of Oct. 19, 2024, and into the next morning.

According to the complaint, she arrived already intoxicated. She alleges that the men then pressured her to take ketamine and other substances. The lawsuit describes the alleged conduct as sexual assault. The men have denied wrongdoing. Some say the sexual activity was consensual, while others deny participating.

The criminal investigation is separate from the lawsuit but concerns the same underlying allegations. Local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten initially declined to pursue charges, then announced the case would be reopened. James’s appointment as special prosecutor is now challenged by defense lawyers who cite alleged bias.

If Letitia James is removed, she would no longer lead the special-prosecutor investigation or make its charging recommendations. Another authorized prosecutor would likely need to handle those responsibilities. The immediate issue is who can review the evidence and decide whether criminal charges should move forward.

The defense motion does not establish that the investigation or any potential charges would be invalid. It argues instead that James’s public comments created an appearance of bias. The motion says her statements could prejudice grand jurors and undermine confidence in charging decisions.

The article does not state what the court will decide or identify a replacement. Governor Kathy Hochul said she expected James to examine the facts and record. If James is removed, the investigation could continue under different leadership, but the transition could affect its timing and public confidence.

The civil lawsuit is the accuser’s case against seven former fraternity members. She alleges they drugged and raped her, and the lawsuit seeks relief through a civil court. The criminal investigation is conducted by prosecutors on behalf of the state and asks whether criminal charges should be filed.

The proceedings are not the same. The lawsuit contains allegations, while the men have denied wrongdoing. Some say the sexual activity was consensual, and others deny participating. Separately, local prosecutor Matthew Van Houten initially declined to pursue charges but later announced the case would be reopened.

Because the proceedings have different purposes and decision-makers, one can continue even if the other does not. A civil lawsuit may proceed without criminal charges, and a criminal investigation may reach a different conclusion from the civil claims. The article does not state either proceeding’s final outcome.

The presumption of innocence requires prosecutors and courts to treat an accused person as not guilty unless and until a conviction is entered. It matters because an accusation, lawsuit, or investigation does not itself establish criminal guilt. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove its case.

Geragos’s motion invokes this principle when it says the accused men are presumed innocent. She argues James’s public message appeared to support the accuser before she had examined evidence. The motion claims that such language could prejudice grand jurors and affect confidence in charging decisions.

The article reports that the men have denied wrongdoing. Some maintain that the sexual activity was consensual, while others deny participating. The criminal investigation was reopened after an earlier decision not to pursue charges. The article does not report any conviction or final criminal finding against the men.