The sprawling, media-dubbed “Cornell Seven” case focuses on one night in October 2024 inside Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity house, and the conflicting accounts of what happened there.
But a separate court fight, filed months before Jane Doe’s civil lawsuit, provides another window into that night. This time, it’s through Cornell’s own Title IX process and the account of one of the men she accused. The student filed the case anonymously as “John Doe,” though media reports have identified him as Scott Kretzschmar, one of seven current or former Cornell students later named as defendants in Doe’s civil lawsuit. Kretzschmar’s attorney Jeremy Saland, even appeared on Cuomo on NewsNation last week to share his version of events.
Los Angeles will refer to him as “John Doe” and to Jane Doe as “Jane Roe” throughout this story.
Cornell found him not responsible for the two violations he was formally accused of: Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation- they concluded he never sexually assaulted Jane Roe. They did find him responsible for Attempted Sexual Exploitation, instead. John Doe took Cornell to court, arguing he was essentially found responsible for something he was never charged with and therefore never had a fair opportunity to defend against.
A judge rejected that argument last month….and now the fight is headed to an appeals court.
The underlying allegations date to the night of Oct. 19 into the early morning of Oct. 20, 2024, when “Jane Roe” attended a party at Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity house in Ithaca.
Roe alleges she was given alcohol and drugs and sexually assaulted over several hours. Her civil lawsuit, filed nearly two years later, names Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Kretzschmar, along with Cornell, fraternity and sorority entities, Moonies Bar & Nightclub and others. None of the seven men has been criminally charged, and the allegations remain unproven.
The criminal investigation has since been reopened, while newly surfaced records from Cornell’s internal investigation have added more detail to the public record. As Los Angeles previously reported, those materials include texts, witness accounts and an extensive transcript of Doe’s November 2024 interview with Cornell police and a Title IX investigator via the New York Times.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor in the case on Oct. 1, removing the criminal investigation from Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten’s control. Hochul said she had lost confidence in the local DA’s ability to effectively handle the case. Under the executive order, James’ office will conduct its own investigation and, if the evidence warrants it, present the case to a grand jury and prosecute any charges. James has pledged a “full and fair” investigation guided by “the facts and the law.” Her appointment, however, has already garnered pushback from the defense and some of the public. Attorney Andrew Miltenberg, who represents one of the Cornell Seven, has called on James to personally recuse herself, pointing to a Facebook post she made before her appointment in which she described what Jane Doe allegedly endured as “horrific and unacceptable” and wrote, “We stand with you.” Miltenberg argues the comments raise questions about the appearance of impartiality. James declined to address the post when questioned about it, saying, “I will not comment on a Facebook post.”
Based on John Doe’s court docket, Cornell’s own process and hearing-panel decision show the university initiated the formal complaint in November 2024, and a three-member panel later held hearings across a handful of dates in May 2025.
His petition says Cornell alleged that he “intentionally viewed Roe undressed and touched his nose to her naked torso while inhaling ketamine from her body.” Cornell’s own formal complaint stated that multiple students were being investigated for Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation and warned that the university could potentially hold respondents accountable for additional policy violations uncovered through evidence or testimony. That last part will prove to be important.
After a 12-day evidentiary hearing, the three-member panel did not find Doe responsible for either Sexual Assault or Sexual Exploitation; they concluded he never snorted ketamine from her torso. The court later summarized that outcome in the recent September decision.
The real issue for Doe was the disturbing Snapchat message circulating among fraternity members. According to records, the now infamous message sent to the fraternity’s Snapchat group read, “Free pussy in alumn pu [pick up].” Doe later responded with a message saying, “the alumni shit is not a bit. First hand POV not a bit.”
His own explanation was that the message was immature and stupid and he had learned from someone passing by that there was, in fact, a girl inside the room. He didn’t even seem to remember exactly why he responded with what he did, about it “being a bit.” But Cornell saw his decision to go into the room differently.
According to Cornell’s filing, the panel determined the “free pussy” Snapchat communicated both an invitation for people to go to the Alumni Room and a reference to female sexual anatomy. It did not credit Doe’s contention that he believed the message was essentially a joke while also saying he was concerned enough about what could be happening to go investigate.
The panel concluded, using Cornell’s preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that Doe understood a woman was likely nude and/or involved in sexual activity and entered the room intending to observe her. Cornell further found that Roe had not invited him into the room and did not know about the Snapchat messages. It therefore concluded that entering the room with that intent amounted to a step toward sexual exploitation, even though the panel did not find that he committed Sexual Exploitation.
The court record also provides considerably more detail about Doe’s version of events, which is important as the public (so far) has only heard one side.
According to Cornell’s findings as recounted in his petition, Doe said that when he entered the Alumni Room, Roe was on a bed, covered by sheets and talking to another fraternity member. He said he asked whether they were okay; both responded that they were, and he left.
Cornell’s later court filing recounts additional portions of his testimony. He testified about receiving the “free pussy” message and going toward the room. He acknowledged speaking with someone who reportedly told him there was a girl in the room with three men but maintained he was not told that sexual activity was taking place. The larger point is important: this was Doe’s orally stated understanding and account of what he encountered that night. It does not establish what actually happened with Jane Roe, and Cornell did not accept all of his explanations about why he entered the room.
Back to Doe’s argument: Doe argued that Cornell charged him with Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation, allowed him to build a defense to those allegations and after clearing him of both, found him responsible for a different violation (Attempted Sexual Exploitation).
His March 2026 Article 78 petition called the result a procedural “bait-and-switch,” arguing Cornell never notified him during the investigation or hearing that Attempted Sexual Exploitation was being considered. He argued that defending against an attempt required a different strategy because it focused on what he intended to do when he entered the room, rather than whether he actually observed Roe nude or engaged in sexual activity.
Cornell countered that he was actually not blindsided at all. The university’s formal complaint expressly warned that additional violations could be identified from evidence, testimony or admissions during the process, and Cornell argued the underlying conduct at issue had been disclosed from the beginning.
Doe and his attorneys also filed an interesting motion that hearing-panel member, Savannah Bao, was distracted during the proceeding and, at one point, participated by videoconference while driving for approximately 45 minutes as a witness (that was reportedly important to his defense) testified.
The contemporaneous emails show his attorney, Jeremy Saland, repeatedly bringing up to Cornell Bao’s lack of attention. In one May 2025 email, Saland asked officials to watch Bao and remind the panel that the students’ futures were on the line and panelists need to devote their attention to the hearing.
After an objection over the proceeding, Saland wrote, “Hopefully, they won’t be driving cars as they read it.”
Cornell did not agree that the incident rendered the proceeding unfair. Its appeals panel characterized Bao’s time in the vehicle as a “substantially de minimis” portion of a hearing spanning many hours and multiple days and said the concern had been addressed.
Doe’s internal appeal was denied in January 2026.
On March 30, Kretzschmar filed an Article 78 proceeding in Tompkins County Supreme Court seeking to overturn Cornell’s decision. He asked the court to annul the attempted-sexual-exploitation finding, vacate his sanctions and expunge the matter from his academic record.
By the time the motion reached the judge, Doe was not asking the court to decide whether Cornell had enough evidence to reach its factual conclusion about his intent. The argument was more about how Cornell got to their conclusion.
Justice Mark G. Masler noted that Doe was not asking the court to overturn Cornell’s findings because there wasn’t enough evidence. Doe’s argument was that Cornell broke its own rules, or the law, by finding him responsible for a violation he says he was never actually accused of during the disciplinary process.
That matters because an Article 78 proceeding is not a new trial of everything that happened inside Chi Phi. It would be the court was reviewing Cornell’s decision-making process under a much smaller legal standard. And Judge Masler rejected Doe’s challenge in a decision dated Sept. 23.
The court emphasized (and what Cornell aforementioned) that Cornell’s formal complaint warned respondents they could be held accountable for additional violations learned about during the investigation and adjudication. It also noted that Doe participated in the lengthy hearing with counsel, testified and had the opportunity to challenge witnesses.
On Sept. 25, his attorneys filed a formal notice appealing Masler’s decision to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. The notice says he is appealing “each and every part” of the lower court’s judgment.
That means the Title IX fight is still alive at the same time the much larger “Cornell Seven” case is moving on several fronts.
Jane Doe’s civil lawsuit remains pending. The criminal investigation has been reopened. And Cornell’s internal handling of the allegations has become a critical piece of the story.
Doe’s case adds another layer to the complicated case: Cornell’s own process did not conclude that he committed the Sexual Assault or Sexual Exploitation offenses that they initially accused him of. But the university did conclude that the evidence showed he walked into that room intending to see a woman nude or engaged in sexual activity without her knowledge or consent.
An appellate court may get the next word on whether Cornell was allowed to reach that finding the way it did.
And why Doe continues fighting Cornell’s disciplinary finding may become important beyond his university record. Under a legal doctrine known as collateral estoppel, a factual issue that has already been fully litigated and decided can be prevented from being argued all over again in a later lawsuit (in some instances, of course). That is exactly what happened to former Clemson student Andrew Pampu, per Los Angeles’ reporting. Years after a university disciplinary board ruled against him, an appeals court concluded that he could not ask a civil jury to reach a different conclusion on an issue Clemson had already decided (particularly after Pampu settled his lawsuit against the university and left the disputed finding intact).
Currently, Doe is taking a different route. Whether Cornell’s findings could bind either side in Roe’s separate civil lawsuit bring up additional legal questions and procedures, but the Pampu case illustrates why allowing a university disciplinary finding to remain on the books can potentially have consequences years after a student leaves campus.
The post Cornell Cleared a ‘Cornell Seven’ Defendant of Sexual Assault: So Why Was He Still Found Responsible? appeared first on LAmag.
