Judge Presses State Over James’s Cornell Post, Delays Ruling

MONTICELLO, N.Y. – A state judge pressed New York’s lawyers on Thursday over a social media post by Attorney General Letitia James about a Cornell University sexual assault accuser, then asked the man seeking her removal why six other accused men were missing from his challenge. Justice James R. Farrell did not rule.

The Associated Press reported that Farrell gave lawyers for Gillio Lopes until Nov. 5 to address why the six other men named in the woman’s civil lawsuit had not joined his petition. James remains special prosecutor of the reopened criminal inquiry while the court considers the matter.

The hearing concerned the prosecutor’s appointment, not a determination of the underlying allegations. A former student identified as Jane Doe alleges in a civil lawsuit that members of the Chi Phi fraternity sexually assaulted her at Cornell in October 2024. The men have denied wrongdoing, and no one has been criminally charged. Eastern Herald previously reported on the Cornell sexual assault lawsuit and threats her lawyer said she had received.

Lopes’s petition, filed Oct. 7, argues that James’s public comments showed bias before her appointment. Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order on Oct. 1 transferring the case from Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten, who had declined to pursue charges in 2024, and appointed James. James had posted her statement on Sept. 28, three days earlier, writing that what “this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable” and closing with “We stand with you.”

The Associated Press reported, in its report carried by CTV News, that Farrell pressed state lawyers about the governor’s decision in light of what James wrote. Assistant Attorney General Kaitlin Vigars said “there has to be actual prejudice” to justify disqualifying James. In a 52-page filing, James and Hochul had called the challenge “procedurally defective and substantively meritless” and noted that courts have affirmed the governor’s authority to exercise her executive powers, including the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Farrell also questioned the defense on why six of the seven accused men were missing from the challenge, the point on which he asked for further filings. His questions did not constitute a ruling for either side.

The legal dispute comes amid a broader debate about Cornell Greek life. President Michael Kotlikoff told faculty this month that fraternities could be ended if the university could not be convinced they could operate safely. That institutional debate is separate from deciding the allegations against the men.

A second defendant has filed his own challenge to James’s appointment. That motion is pending in Tompkins County, where Cornell is located, and is separate from the proceeding Farrell heard.

Neither side’s argument settles what happened at the fraternity house. The defense argues that James’s public comments compromise her ability to weigh the evidence impartially. The state contends that disqualification requires actual prejudice, not a speculative claim of future harm.

The investigation has consequences beyond the courtroom. Cornell later imposed a fraternity party ban for the academic year as the university faced scrutiny over its response. That measure does not establish whether any individual defendant committed a crime.

The Nov. 5 deadline concerns additional submissions; it does not itself establish when Farrell must decide. The question of whether James should remain special prosecutor is unresolved. The seven men remain uncharged, and the allegations that brought the parties to court have not resulted in a criminal judgment.