Letitia James appointment becomes pressure point in Cornell gang rape case

President Trump says the Cornell University men accused of gang rape won’t get a fair shake with New York Attorney General Letitia James investigating their case — and more than one of the accused agrees.

James’s appointment has become the latest flash point in the swelling controversy over the 2024 incident and its handling by officials. A longtime Trump antagonist, she was hit with accusations of bias right away after posting online in support of Jane Doe, the former Cornell student who accuses Chi Phi fraternity brothers of plying her with drugs before sexually assaulting her.

“What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers. To her, and to all survivors: you’re not alone. We stand with you,” James posted on social media days before she was tapped by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) to investigate the case.

Gillio Lopes and Winston Lee, two of the seven men named in Jane Doe’s lawsuit , argue in separate petitions to the courts that the post proves James will not be able to lead a “ fair investigation .”

And the National Legal and Policy Center filed an ethics complaint against James over the message, saying it showed “clear bias on a highly publicized case.”

Legal experts tell The Hill that while the post may have been ill-advised, it likely does not meet the measure of removal from the case.

“At the time of her comments, James had not yet been appointed to handle the criminal investigation, so it can be argued that the rule did not apply to her at all,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former U.S. attorney.

At an event last week, James said her comments “demonstrate empathy, and what we need now more than ever in our body politic is more empathy.”

“The governor of the great state of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, assigned me to analyze this case and to judge it and to do it without bias. She’s requesting an unbiased investigation and a thorough investigation, and we will do that based on the facts and based on the evidence. Politics stops at the door in my office,” she added.

Legal experts warn that public perception of fairness in the judicial system is not a matter to be taken lightly.

And Trump threw fuel on the fire earlier this month.

“Letitia James is a corrupt person,” he told reporters outside the White House.

“I feel bad for whoever she’s looking at, because they won’t get a fair shake,” he added.

The White House did not respond to The Hill’s request for further comment.

“In this and every investigation, the Office of the Attorney General is committed to conducting a comprehensive review of nothing but the facts, the evidence, and the law,” a spokesperson for James’s office told The Hill.

The president and the New York attorney general have a long and acrimonious history, including her sweeping fraud case against him and his businesses and his Justice Department filing fraud charges against her last year.

“I think that he should have stayed out of it. I mean, that was not something I was happy to hear,” said Shari Karney, a victims’ rights attorney, adding that “without knowing all the facts,” Trump was voicing support for “the seven alleged rapists.”

Robert Wilcox, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said Trump’s comments are more “political noise” than something that could affect the legal case.

“It’s fairly rare that you would see a prosecutor removed from a prosecution. They might have an ethical complaint brought against them, and they might be reprimanded by a bar … but to remove them, I think you would have to show a pretty substantial likelihood that their presence would prejudice the ultimate outcome of the case,” Wilcox said.

Attorneys for the accused could in theory file appeals based on concerns of bias from the prosecutor, but the defense would have to “show that the judge made some error in denying the petition and acted unreasonably,” and ultimately the appeal “might not be successful,” he added.

Even without Trump’s help, doubt can be cast on prosecutors in high-profile cases given the very nature of voters’ power over them.

That is part of the reason why some observers think James, who is up for reelection next month, waded into the controversial case in the first place.

“I’m sure that when she made this post, James was thinking about her public persona and how people perceive her. And I can imagine that would worry the potential defendants in the Cornell case. The young men who’ve been accused of sexual assault may worry that James will see this case as an opportunity to advance her political career. We see that type of complaint sometimes by defendants in high-profile cases,” said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a distinguished professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.

The Cornell case has garnered nationwide attention over Jane Doe’s disturbing allegations, which include that she was coerced with alcohol and drugs before being raped multiple times at the Chi Phi frat house.

A screenshot of an alleged Snapchat group with the fraternity members shows one saying there was “free p—-” upstairs the night of the alleged attack.

The local district attorney at the time said he did not pursue criminal charges because the information he received from the Cornell police made it seem the night was consensual. But documents reviewed by CBS News allegedly show Jane Doe told investigators she was “100 percent certain” she was raped.

In reopening the investigation, Hochul said she has “every confidence” in James’s ability to take it on.

“Had she made these comments after being appointed to the case, then one could argue that these would be extrajudicial sort of prejudicial comments that potentially were improper. Here, she’s not yet appointed, and so the analysis is different,” said Jonathan Ross, a visiting assistant professor at the at the University of South Carolina’s Joseph F. Rice School of Law .

“It’s probably a bad idea to make statements like this when there was the possibility that she could be appointed to the case. But at the time she made the statements, she had not yet been appointed, and I think that that really kind of governs the analysis,” he added.