Cornell Student Lawyer Seeks Removal of AG Letitia James from Assault Probe

New York State Judge James Farrell will hear arguments this Thursday on whether Attorney General Letitia James should remain the special prosecutor for a sexual assault investigation at Cornell University. The hearing centers on a petition filed by the legal team of Gillio Lopes, a Cornell student accused of participating in an alleged gang rape at a Chi Phi fraternity house in 2024. The defense argues that James demonstrated a presumption of guilt through public remarks made before she was formally appointed to the case.

The dispute stems from a post James shared on her official X account on September 28. In the message, she described the experience of the accuser, Jane Doe, as horrific and unacceptable, and stated that she was holding the survivor in her prayers. Three days later, on October 1, Governor Kathy Hochul issued an executive order designating James as the special prosecutor. Hochul made this move after saying she lost faith in the Tompkins County district attorney, who had previously reviewed the allegations and concluded they did not support criminal charges.

Andrew Miltenberg, Lopes' attorney, filed the petition on October 7. He contends that James' comments were not just expressions of empathy but clear signals that she had already decided on the outcome. Miltenberg wrote in the court filing that James unequivocally demonstrated bias against the defendants named in the related civil case. He is asking the judge to void Hochul' executive order based on this perceived conflict of interest.

Farrell, a Republican who was elected to the bench in 2019 and previously served as a Sullivan County district attorney, has allotted 30 minutes for each side to present their arguments. James is not expected to attend the hearing, though she is currently running for reelection. This is one of two legal challenges seeking to remove James from the case; a separate motion filed by another accused student is pending in Tompkins County court.

Miltenberg told CNN that he does not dispute Hochul's authority to appoint a special prosecutor. However, he believes James has already picked a side by accepting the narrative of the allegations. He stated that no one who made such a statement is the right person to restore confidence in an investigation. His team argues that the statement went beyond compassion and effectively prejudged the facts of the case.

Lawyers representing the attorney general have countered that courts have limited authority to review the governor's use of her appointment powers. They describe Lopes' concerns as wildly speculative. Their team argues that James' post was a single empathetic remark that does not indicate she prejudged the investigation. They also note that the challenge is premature and could be renewed later if a criminal case is actually brought.

The legal battle unfolds as Cornell University faces internal scrutiny. The Cornell Faculty Senate is weighing a no-confidence vote regarding the administration's handling of what it calls an ongoing crisis of sexual assault. While the vote is non-binding and would not force the president to resign, it adds pressure to the administration. The university's board of trustees recently hired Sally Yates, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, to lead an outside investigation into how Cornell handled Doe's allegations and other reported incidents.

Lopes was suspended for one academic year following a Title IX process that found he was involved in the incident. He was required to take a class and submit a reflective paper. He is currently attending Cornell with two semesters remaining before graduation. Miltenberg maintains that Lopes' encounter with Doe was consensual and occurred before messages were sent inviting other fraternity members to his room. He previously stated that he has reviewed all evidence in the Title IX file and is not aware of a crime being committed by Lopes.

The judge will rule after hearing both sides' arguments on Thursday. The decision will determine whether James continues to lead the criminal investigation or if the case returns to a different oversight body.