🚨NEW: Andrew Miltenberg, attorney for one of the Cornell 7 has shared this statement with our team about the appointment of
@NewYorkStateAG to oversee the investigation into the alleged Cornell gang rape
####
I have a serious concern about Attorney General James personally leading this investigation, and I want to be precise about what that concern is—and what it is not.
This is not about politics. It is not an attack on Attorney General James, nor is it a suggestion that allegations of sexual assault should be treated with anything less than the utmost seriousness. They should be.
The issue is narrower.
Before Attorney General James was appointed to investigate these allegations, she publicly stated that what this young woman had “been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable,” and told her, together with “all survivors,” that “we stand with you.”
Three days later, she was placed in the position of determining what actually happened.
There is nothing improper about expressing compassion for someone who reports a sexual assault. But there is an important difference between supporting a person who makes an allegation and appearing to accept the factual premise of that allegation before conducting an investigation.
That distinction becomes especially important when the person who made those statements is subsequently charged with determining whether a crime occurred and whether anyone should be prosecuted.
I am not suggesting that Attorney General James does not believe she can be fair. The concern is whether the public can have confidence that the investigation begins without any predetermined view of the facts.
Indeed, independence and public confidence were among the reasons a special prosecutor was appointed in the first place. If those principles justified replacing the original prosecutor, they should also matter in determining who leads the replacement investigation.
Attorney General James has now said that this process will be guided by “the facts and the law.” I take her at her word. But given her prior public statements, I believe the better course—for the complainant, for the accused, and for the integrity of the investigation—is for Attorney General James personally to step aside and allow senior prosecutors in her office who have made no public statements concerning the merits of these allegations to conduct the investigation.
That would not weaken the investigation. It would strengthen it.
Whatever conclusion ultimately emerges—whether charges are brought or not brought—should be one the public can trust because the prosecutors making that decision entered the case without having publicly aligned themselves with either factual narrative.
Attorney General James is an experienced prosecutor. Precisely because of that experience, she should recognize the difference between believing one can remain personally fair and recognizing when prior public statements have created an avoidable question about the appearance of impartiality.
The simplest way to remove that question is for her personally to recuse herself and allow an uncommitted prosecutor within her office to lead the investigation.