Latest / DEEP INSIGHT / DA reopens Cornell 'gang rape' investigation the full timeline explained

Transcript

DA reopens Cornell 'gang rape' investigation the full timeline explained · DEEP INSIGHT

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: A prosecutor in New York has reopened a criminal investigation
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: into claims of a fraternity gang rape at Cornell University.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: A former student says she was drugged and sexually assaulted
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: in 2024 and is suing the Ivy League school, saying
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: that it failed to protect her. CNN's Gloria Pasmino joins us. So, Gloria,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: this civil lawsuit is getting a lot of attention despite
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: this investigation two years ago. Tell us more. That's right.
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: Not only is it getting a lot of attention, but
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: it's once again putting a spotlight on how universities and
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: colleges address sexual assault allegations on their campuses. This case, Pamela,
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: is disturbing. The details are graphic. And honestly, it is
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: a complicated case. And I want to start right at
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: the beginning. Right. The alleged assault took place in October
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: of twenty twenty four. According to the lawsuit, two of
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: the seven members of Chi Phi fraternity were expelled and
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: others received lesser punishment, including suspensions and written assignments after
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: Cornell University conducted an investigation. The fraternity was also barred
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: from campus. Now, the initial investigation back in 2024 resulted
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: in no charges and no arrests. Jane Doe, the accuser
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: in this case, has since left the university, and now
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: she has brought this civil lawsuit against a school, against
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: a fraternity, her own sorority, seeking damages. The Tompkins County
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: district attorney is also saying that he is reopening the investigation.
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: He plans to present new evidence in the case, but
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: this district attorney is now under a lot of pressure,
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: facing calls to reopen the case, which he's doing now,
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: but also criticism about how he initially handled the investigation
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: back in 24. Now, we should mention that he has
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: said that the reason for why there was no charges
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: back in 2024 is because Jane Doe did not allege
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: at the time that she had been drugged or sexually assaulted.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: That's a key part. I want to read a statement
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: from the district attorney, which says that Jane Doe's sworn
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: statement in November 2024 said, did not allege that she
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary,
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious and consensual. My office obviously
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: did not and could not have based our November 2024
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: not be filed until nearly two years later. Now, Pamela,
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: I want to get To the details of this lawsuit,
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: because as I said, they are graphic and disturbing, Jane Doe,
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: who was 20 years old at the time of the incident,
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: alleges that she started out her night drinking at her
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: sorority house. She then traveled to the Chi Phi fraternity house.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: And it was once inside that house that she was
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: drugged and sexually assaulted by seven members of that fraternity.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: There's also some new evidence in this lawsuit in the
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: form of a group chat that was allegedly being shared
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: by fraternity members in which they are discussing the sexual
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: assault and appear to invite other members to participate. I
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: want you to hear from Jane Doe's attorney. He gave
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: us a statement earlier this morning telling us that that
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: piece of evidence was not provided to the initial investigation
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: and that other than her initial contact with Cornell University Police,
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: Jane Doe was not contacted by investigators from the Tompkins
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: County District Attorney's Office. or any investigators trained in interviewing
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: rape survivors. And my last point, Pamela, and I think
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: very importantly in this, is the response from Cornell University
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: so far. Because again, them, along with this district attorney,
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: are in the spotlight now for their handling of the case.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: They have said any suggestion that the university did not
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. continuation of
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported,
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault. Pamela, we
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: have reached out to all of the seven students that
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: are accused in this civil lawsuit. We so far have
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: heard from the attorney for one of them. They are
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: denying any wrongdoing, and we expect this to play out
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: in court. But I think, again, the focus on how
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: this district attorney handled the investigation, the details of the investigation,
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: what was said at the time of the alleged crime,
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: and what will happen now, and again, how universities handle
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: these cases of sexual assault.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: A lot to lay out there, but really important to
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: understand the context surrounding all of this and the facts.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: Gloria Pasmino, thank you so much. So to get some
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: more analysis and to better understand all of this, I
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: want to bring in former federal prosecutor Barrett Berger. Barrett,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: good to see you. Let's begin with the criminal investigation
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: being reopened. What do you think about that? How unusual
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: is that?
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: It is unusual, but in this case, it is absolutely appropriate.
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: this is certainly something that I'm sure the district attorney
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: is feeling a lot of pressure to do. But it
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: also seems to be the right thing to do, given
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: these horrific allegations that have been made in the civil lawsuit.
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: This is an investigation that would have been much easier
• 5:35
  Speaker 3: to have been done closer in time to the actual events.
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: It's hard to bring an investigation two years later. Witnesses graduate.
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: Their memories get less sharp. Physical evidence gets destroyed. Snapchat
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: messages disappear. So it's hard to reopen these things, but
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: it's absolutely the right thing to do, given the nature
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: of the allegations and the complaint here.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: And there is a group chat that is included in
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: this civil lawsuit. How persuasive do you think that evidence
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: will be now?
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, we need to learn more about this.
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: It's surprising to me that this was something that at
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: least it appears the district attorney's office didn't know about
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: up until they learned about it through the civil lawsuit. Presumably,
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: if there's those messages, there's probably other type of forensic
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: evidence out there. There might be other text messages, other
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: group me. This is something that the investigation will focus on.
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: What else is out there that could corroborate what this
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: survivor is saying in her civil lawsuit? I mean, in
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: a case like this, it really comes down to credibility
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: of the person making the complaint. So any type of
• 6:45
  Speaker 3: corroboration for the things that she's saying, whether that's these
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: text messages, whether it's other witnesses that can come forward
• 6:53
  Speaker 3: with their own recollections, it's going to be really important
• 6:56
  Speaker 3: for the DA to find those things.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: So let's drill into this a little bit more because
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: the prosecutor says no criminal charges were filed in 2024
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: because the woman's statement did not claim she was drugged
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: or that she didn't consent to sexual activities. You have
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: the attorney for the woman, known as Jane Doe, saying
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: that she only had contact with Cornell police, Cornell University police,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: not anyone from the prosecutor's office. or anyone trained in
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: interviewing rape survivors, for that matter. The prosecutor told ABC
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: its standard practice is to take what the police told
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: them and not do an independent investigation. What do you
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: think about that?
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's two important points that this raises.
• 7:37
  Speaker 3: The first one is a university's Title IX investigation is
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: not the same as a criminal investigation. It serves a
• 7:44
  Speaker 3: different purpose. It has a different evidentiary focus. And there's
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: a different level of burden of proof. You don't have
• 7:51
  Speaker 3: to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in order for
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: there to be Title IX sanctions involved here. So what
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: Cornell was looking at when they were doing that is
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: not the same thing that the police either would have
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: been looking at back in 2024 or should be looking
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: at now. So that's the first thing. And it really
• 8:05
  Speaker 3: exposes why it's so important for law enforcement to have
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: the resources to be able to do their own investigation
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: and not to have to rely on things that a
• 8:13
  Speaker 3: college is doing. The second thing that this really highlights
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: is this real deficiency in New York law right now.
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: So in order to prove that somebody was mentally incapacitated,
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: which means that they didn't have the ability to consent
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: to some sort of sexual activity, they have to be
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: involuntarily incapacitated, meaning that they were drugged against their will,
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: that they were given alcohol against their will. There is
• 8:39
  Speaker 3: this gap in New York law where if somebody voluntarily
• 8:42
  Speaker 3: took drugs, drank alcohol to the point that they were incapacitated,
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: in many circumstances, that's not enough to prove that they
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: didn't consent. This is something that legislators have been trying
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: to work to fix, that advocacy groups have pointed out
• 8:57
  Speaker 3: as being a real deficiency in New York law. But
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: this case really highlights why that particular deficiency could have
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: been something that the DA was relying on and not
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: moving forward with an investigation back in 2024.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: But what about quickly, if you're offered a drug, you
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: take it, but it's not the drug that you were
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: told it was? In this case, I believe, according to
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the suit, she was told it was ketamine. What about that?
• 9:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that would probably fall. If you think
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: you're taking one thing and it's, in fact, a much
• 9:27
  Speaker 3: stronger drug that actually incapacitates you, I think that would
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: present a pretty strong argument for saying that this was
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: against her will, that this was involuntary. Again, we don't
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: exactly know all the information that the police and the
• 9:38
  Speaker 3: district attorney's office had back when this happened. This is
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: why this grand jury proceeding is going to be really
• 9:44
  Speaker 3: important to uncover all of the evidence about this. But
• 9:48
  Speaker 3: all we do know is that the allegations in the
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: civil lawsuit are horrific. This deserves further investigation. And this
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: victim really deserves some justice after everything she went through.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: Barrett Berger, thank you so much.