Cornell Seven: Letitia James Under Fire, Defendant Fights Rape Claims and Judge Sounds Alarm

The media-dubbed “Cornell Seven” case has yet to produce any criminal charges, but it’s already generated enough fireworks to keep multiple New York courtrooms busy.

And the legal drama surrounding Cornell University’s scandal is now unfolding on multiple fronts: New York Attorney General Letitia James is fighting to keep her role as special prosecutor, one of the “seven” wants out of the civil lawsuit entirely, and a Manhattan judge has ruled on Jane Doe’s anonymity while issuing a warning about online harassment and threats.

In a detailed 52-page filing, James and Gov. Kathy Hochul pushed back against an attempt by Gillio Lopes, one of seven men named in a civil lawsuit alleging sexual assault at Cornell in October 2024, to remove James from overseeing the reopened criminal investigation. Lopes’ attorney, Andrew Miltenberg, argues that James compromised her impartiality by publicly expressing support for the alleged victim before Hochul appointed her special prosecutor on October 1.

The state argues against those claims, claiming that James’ social media post was an expression of empathy, not evidence that she had already decided anyone was guilty. Attorneys for Hochul and James also argue that Lopes has no legal right to challenge the appointment because he has not been charged with a crime or shown that James’ involvement has harmed him. They argue that his concerns about a potentially biased prosecution are speculative and that Hochul’s appointment falls within her authority as governor.

The state wants Lopes’ petition dismissed entirely, with prejudice, which would prevent him from bringing the same challenge again.

On Friday, Miltenberg requested permission to file a longer response to the state’s arguments, asking for 6,500 words instead of the usual 4,200. The request followed the state’s own application to submit a memo of up to 12,000 words. The judge granted the request.

The matter is scheduled before Acting Supreme Court Justice James Farrell on October 29 in Sullivan County, NY.

Meanwhile, in the civil lawsuit where it all began, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond issued a separate ruling Friday granting the alleged victim permission to continue using the pseudonym Jane Doe, a request none of the defendants opposed.

Perry-Bond also cited reports of people attempting to identify Doe and harassing or threatening individuals connected to the case. She warned that cyberstalking and threats across state lines, whether directed at Doe, the defendants or their attorneys, could result in federal prosecution. The judge also suggested extending privacy protections to the individually named defendants and potential witnesses, acknowledging the concerns about retaliation and harassment.

While Doe’s identity must remain confidential publicly, Perry-Bond made clear that defendants and their attorneys can privately share information with potential witnesses, medical providers and others when necessary to investigate the allegations (provided those individuals agree to keep it confidential).

In another development, Diego Sarabia, one of the seven men named in Doe’s lawsuit, is asking the Perry-Bond to dismiss all claims against him with prejudice. His lawyers at Hacker Murphy argue that her nearly 600-paragraph complaint does not specifically accuse him of rape. In a 16-page filing Friday, Sarabia’s attorney James Knox argues that Doe identifies only two alleged acts involving him: grabbing her face and kissing her without consent, and joining other fraternity members in pouring lines of ketamine onto her body and snorting the drug. They state that Doe never specifically accuses Sarabia of penetration, touching her intimate body parts, supplying drugs or participating in the alleged sexual encounters involving other defendants. They argue the complaint just lumps all seven men together under accusations of rape without differentiating what each allegedly did. Knox also argues that the claims against Sarabia are barred by New York’s one-year statute of limitations, and do not qualify for the extended 20-year period applicable to certain sexual offenses. The filings further states that Sarabia had no legal duty to supervise or protect Doe from other adult students. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Sarabia’s motion comes just days after another defendant, Orazio Petito, was dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice on October 20, following a stipulation between the parties. Petito’s attorney previously maintained that his client had been incorrectly identified as president of the Chi Phi fraternity at the time of the alleged assault. The filing does not specify why the parties agreed to dismiss him, but the decision prevents Doe from bringing the same claims against Petito again.

No criminal charges have been filed against the seven men in connection with the allegations, which they deny.

The post Cornell Seven: Letitia James Under Fire, Defendant Fights Rape Claims and Judge Sounds Alarm appeared first on LAmag.