New York Judge Lets Accuser in Cornell Rape Lawsuit Keep Her Identity Private

A New York judge ruled Friday that the woman suing seven Cornell University students over rape allegations may continue her lawsuit under the pseudonym Jane Doe. Justice Phaedra Perry-Bond of the New York Supreme Court granted anonymity, citing the notoriety of the allegations and widespread reports of malicious behavior by some people. She wrote that some members of the public have tried to identify Doe and have used what they believe is her identity to harass and threaten people allegedly tied to her. The judge warned that cyberstalking, or making or encouraging threats across state lines, against Doe, any named defendant or their attorneys can be a federal crime and may lead to prosecution. Perry-Bond recently denied a gag-order request from one of the seven defendants, Diego Sarabia. His attorney had argued that public statements could prejudice potential jurors and contribute to threats, harassment and doxing of people involved in the case.

Left-leaning outlets tracked by Crosswire had not reported this story at the time of writing, while alternative/independent and right-leaning outlets had. The Daily Wire, on the right, gives the fullest account. It calls the ruling a legal win for Doe, uses the label Cornell 7 and the term gang-rape lawsuit, and notes that Perry-Bond is a Democrat elected in 2023. It quotes at length from her opinion and her warning about federal crimes. It also points out, with the word notably, that she rejected Sarabia's gag-order request, and it relays his attorney's arguments. Reuters, the independent outlet, reports only the core fact, in a short excerpt: the accuser can stay anonymous. It does not mention the judge's party, the warning or the gag-order request. Both sources agree on the central ruling. The difference is that the right-leaning coverage adds the judge's background, her caution and the defendant's rejected request.