Prosecutors in upstate New York are defending their decision not to bring charges in 2024 following an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten described the allegations as “morally disturbing” but argued that the facts known at the time did not support a prosecution.

Van Houten stated that the accuser's account suggested she consented to the sexual activity and did not withdraw that consent. He explained that the fraternity members "stopped and did not pursue what they were doing" when she raised concerns, which he argued indicated a lack of continued sexual activity that would constitute a crime under New York law.

“If what was said on social media about this case was true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now,” Van Houten told ABC News. He emphasized that if the accuser had expressed a lack of consent, and sexual activity had continued, that would have been a crime, but he asserted that was not what was alleged in her statement.

The district attorney’s comments come after his office announced it would be reopening the 2024 case in light of a civil lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe." The lawsuit alleges she was drugged, assaulted, and gang-raped by seven former and current members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell.

Cornell’s Chi Phi chapter was barred from campus following the alleged incident on October 19, 2024. However, none of the individuals allegedly involved faced criminal charges at the time, according to the DA's office.

Van Houten acknowledged that his office did not examine a photo of the fraternity’s Snapchat group, arguing that the messages, while “disgusting and vulgar and immoral,” were not critical to the legal analysis of consent. He stated the central question was whether Jane Doe consented and was able to consent.

An attorney for Jane Doe, Thomas P. Giuffra, responded to Van Houten's statement, alleging that his client's claims were not investigated thoroughly. Giuffra expressed difficulty understanding how a complete criminal investigation could have occurred when his client was only spoken to by the initial responding officer.

Giuffra also raised concerns that critical evidence may have been lost due to the two-year delay in investigating the case, stating that opportunities to fully investigate the crimes were missed and the truth may never be fully known.