Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney for a former Cornell University fraternity member, is asking New York Attorney General Letitia James to step aside from the state’s investigation into sexual assault allegations. Miltenberg argues that James appeared to accept the accuser’s account before Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed her office as special prosecutor. The dispute centers on a Sept. 28 social media post in which James wrote, “We stand with you” to the woman identified in court filings as Jane Doe. James later said her office would investigate the matter fully and fairly.
| 1) | Attorney challenges James’ impartiality |
| 2) | Social media post before appointment |
| 3) | Defense account and call for review |
| 4) | Timeline of the allegations and lawsuit |
| 5) | Questions surrounding earlier evidence |
Attorney challenges James’ impartiality
Andrew Miltenberg, a New York attorney who handles Title IX and civil rights matters, represents a former member of the Chi Phi fraternity who remains a Cornell student after serving a one-year suspension. He says his request is not political or personal, but concerns whether the attorney general can conduct an independent investigation after publicly expressing support for the accuser.
Miltenberg said James’ earlier language could reasonably be read as accepting a central factual premise of the allegations before reviewing the complete evidence. He has asked James to recuse herself and suggested that federal prosecutors could take over the matter.
“My issue is not political, and it is not personal. Several days before her appointment, Letitia James made some comments on X, and those comments are such that I think it’s fair to look at them and say it appears that the person making those comments is biased.”
Social media post before appointment
On Sept. 28, before the appointment was announced, James’ official account responded to a news article about the case. She described what Jane Doe had allegedly experienced as horrific and unacceptable, said she was holding the woman in her thoughts and prayers, and wrote, “We stand with you.” The post also referred to survivors of sexual assault generally.
On Oct. 1, Kathy Hochul appointed James’ office as special prosecutor for a new investigation. James subsequently stated that her office would examine the case fully and fairly. The timing of the two posts and the appointment is the basis of the defense request for recusal.
Defense account and call for review
Miltenberg said his client did not see Jane Doe consuming alcohol or drugs and maintains that their interaction was mutual and consensual. He said the public has seen only a limited portion of the evidence and urged investigators to examine the allegations carefully rather than rely on public descriptions of the case.
“These are terrible allegations, and clearly something happened. Jane Doe deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. And the allegations need to and must be treated with respect and dignity.”
Legal analyst Mehek Cooke also criticized the appointment as unprofessional and called for James to recuse herself. The defense position does not resolve the underlying allegations, which remain subject to investigation and litigation.
Timeline of the allegations and lawsuit
The alleged group sexual assault is reported to have occurred overnight on Oct. 19 to 20, 2024, at a Cornell-affiliated fraternity setting in Ithaca, New York. Jane Doe reported the incident to university police on Nov. 8, 2024. The resulting civil lawsuit names seven former Chi Phi members, the fraternity and affiliated entities, Cornell University, Doe’s sorority, and a local bar where she alleges she was served drinks while underage.
Cornell suspended the fraternity and conducted an internal investigation that included dozens of witnesses, nearly two weeks of hearings, a 100-page decision, appeals, and appellate decisions. The university’s handling of the matter has drawn renewed scrutiny as the state investigation proceeds.
Questions surrounding earlier evidence
Tompkins County prosecutors previously declined to file charges based on a six-page sworn statement signed by Jane Doe. County District Attorney Matt Van Houten said the document did not contain the most serious allegations later reported from an interview with detectives.
Van Houten wrote that the statement presented a different account of the events, particularly regarding the legal definition of lack of consent. He also said Doe made more than 20 handwritten notations on the document. After learning that more explicit allegations had reportedly been made during the police interview, he said his view of the case changed. Those discrepancies are among the issues the new investigation is expected to examine.
| Number | Key Point |
|---|---|
| 1 | The defense says James’ social media post raises questions about her impartiality. |
| 2 | Hochul appointed James’ office as special prosecutor on Oct. 1. |
| 3 | The case involves allegations tied to an incident reported in October 2024. |
| 4 | Earlier evidence and differences between accounts remain under scrutiny. |
Summary
The request for James’ recusal focuses on whether her expression of support for Jane Doe before the appointment could undermine confidence in an independent investigation. The defense continues to dispute the allegations and emphasizes the limited public record, while officials are expected to assess the full evidence, including earlier statements and investigative materials. No criminal charges had been filed by the county prosecutors based on the statement previously reviewed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the defense seeking James’ recusal?
The defense argues that James’ public statement supporting Jane Doe before her appointment could indicate bias and affect the investigation’s independence.
When was James’ office appointed to investigate?
Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed James’ office as special prosecutor on Oct. 1, after James’ Sept. 28 social media post.
What happened to the earlier criminal case?
Tompkins County prosecutors declined to file charges based on a six-page sworn statement, while later reports about a police interview raised questions about whether the document contained the full account.