Gavel Gavel

Part 3.
Thomas and Lydia welcome back criminal defense attorney Liz Skeen to break down the Tompkins County DA's decision not to prosecute the Cornell Chi Phi case, line by line. Why did the DA's own press release say his office "confirmed" with campus police that there was no crime, instead of investigating it themselves? What does a six page, hand-corrected witness statement actually prove, and why did nobody ever sit down with Jane Doe to ask a single follow-up question? Liz walks through New York's three degrees of rape, the strange voluntary-versus-involuntary intoxication rule, and whether a motion to remove Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor has any real teeth. Content note for sexual assault throughout.
Patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod get episodes early and ad-free!

Part 2.
It's time to talk about the disgusting Snapchat convo that really is the foundation of this entire case. In a group of 57 people, only 1 to possibly 3 people did the right thing and reported it and/or gave it to Jane Doe.
Patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod get episodes early and ad-free!

Part 1.
Thomas and Lydia open the 101-page complaint in Jane Doe v. Cornell University et al., the Chi Phi gang rape lawsuit that has taken over the internet, and the misinformation is flying from every direction. What does Cornell's own history of fraternity reform resolutions reveal about how long this was a known problem on campus? Why does the DA's explanation for not pressing charges hinge on a very specific gap in New York's consent law, the same gap state legislators have apparently been trying to close for seven years? And what did the sorority's own 'sober monitors' see that night at Mooney's before everything went wrong?
Part 2 gets into the Snapchat. Content note for sexual assault throughout.
Cases discussed:
Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc. et al. (Chi Phi / Tri Delta lawsuit)

New York State legislation to amend the affirmative consent / intoxication standard

Patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod get episodes early and ad-free!

Part 2!
Thomas, Lydia, and Matt return to the Broadview grand jury transcript, with Lydia in the role of a lifetime as prosecutor Sheri Mecklenburg. What happens when a juror says the case is a crock of shit, and what does the DOJ's own grand jury manual say should happen next? Then Mecklenburg's new motion to intervene arrives with a surprising detail about who at the top was paying attention. Why did the defense open their response with a "scrivener's error"? And what does her resignation letter say that her court filing doesn't?
Plus: a hearing is coming. Is she a credible whistleblower, a prosecutor covering her own tracks, or both?
Cases discussed:
United States v. Broadview protest defendants (N.D. Ill.), grand jury misconduct motions

AUSA Sheri Mecklenburg's Motion for Leave to Intervene

Defendants' response supporting intervention

Patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod get episodes early and ad-free!

Back to the Broadview Six!
Thomas, Lydia, and Matt return to the case that gave us one of our favorite transcript moments of all time, because its most memorable character is suddenly all over the news. Sheri Mecklenburg has left the Department of Justice, and she has a lot to say about why. Her letter is titled "re my forced retirement." Her motion asks the judge to let her into a case she no longer works on. And she is quoting from a DOJ manual you are not allowed to read.
Is she a whistleblower, a scapegoat, or something in between? And should anyone be welcoming her to the resistance? We read the filings, then rewind the tape to see whether her story holds up.
Cases discussed:
United States v. Rabbitt et al. (the Broadview Six, N.D. Ill.)

Defendants' Motion to Appoint Special Counsel for Criminal Contempt

Mecklenburg Motion for Leave to Intervene

Patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod get episodes early and ad-free!