Judge in Cornell Jane Doe suit declines to issue gag order on attorneys

Judge in Cornell Jane Doe suit declines to issue gag order on attorneys

Fears of internet vigilantism don't warrant restricting attorneys' First Amendment rights, the judge said.MANHATTAN (CN) — The judge in the Jane Doe lawsuit against Cornell University and seven men accused of gang raping a woman at a fraternity in 2024 declined to issue a gag order barring that woman’s attorney from speaking to the press.In Friday’s ruling, Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond expressed concerns that the request by defendant Diego Sarabia is a “sideshow meant to muddy the waters and distract form the merits of the claims.”She said that “given the notoriety of doxing related to this case,” all parties should work together to safeguard against “threats or harassment from malicious outside actors.”Thomas Giuffra, Jane Doe’s civil attorney, has publicly expressed his worries about the harassment and threats that Jane Doe has received since filing her lawsuit in mid-September.In the wake of that lawsuit, local prosecutors reopened their criminal investigation against the men involved. New York state officials are also conducting a simultaneous investigation and have criticized the university’s response.In his request, Sarabia asked for “narrowly tailored restrictions on extrajudicial statements by the parties and their counsel.”He took issue with some of Giuffra’s public statements — including about the possibility of evidence being destroyed during the two-year delay in a proper investigation, Jane Doe’s incapacity to consent and the “alleged cover-up by Cornell University and others.”Without a gag order, “the resulting danger is not abstract,” wrote Sarabia, who’s represented by the Albany-based Hacker Murphy LLP. He wrote that defendants in the case had been doxed and face “dangerous internet vigilantism.”Perry-Bond has since sealed filings containing the defendants’ addresses. However, Sarabia’s request for a gag order didn’t meet the rigorous requirements for one, the judge said.“Expressing opinions on the case or reporting on how the litigation has impacted clients cannot alone serve as a factual basis for limiting an individual’s First Amendment rights,” the judge wrote. “A review of the statements of which Mr. Sarabia complains shows that the majority of statements would be understood by an ordinary listener to express nothing more than Mr. Giuffra’s opinion.”In her state court lawsuit, Jane Doe describes multiple men drugging and raping her for more than four hours at the Ivy League school’s chapter of Chi Phi fraternity. She says two fraternity members propositioned her to have a threesome while she, then 20 years old, was too drunk to consent.She says they pressured her into doing ketamine — a drug she had never done before. She says multiple additional men then entered the room and raped her as the fraternity members continued to ply her with ketamine.Cornell has faced outrage over its handling of the gang rape report and subsequent Title IX investigation. According to reviews of the Title IX investigation, Jane Doe told campus police that “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped” — and yet that statement and other key details were left out of the six-page summary given to the Tompkins County district attorney.Only two of the seven men were expelled; two are still enrolled at the school. The fraternity was suspended indefinitely.Neither Giuffra nor attorneys for Sarabia, Alishah Bhimani and James Knox, immediately returned requests for comment.In addition to Cornell and the seven accused rapists, Jane Doe sued Chi Phi Fraternity Inc., the Delta Delta Delta sorority and Moonies Bar & Nightclub, a bar in downtown Ithaca where Jane Doe says she was “served alcohol to the point of visible intoxication” before the assault despite being underage.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads

Original Source

Read the full article at Courthousenews →

KhanList aggregates and links to publicly available news content. We do not host full articles from third-party sources. Always verify important information with original sources.