‘Cornell 7’ Frat Bro Drops SHOCKING Legal Move Amid Rape Claims

There is an effort underway to silence. Jane Doe's attorney in the Cornell 7. alleged rape case. Is it going to work? With extensive online commentary. happening in this case, can this. attorney fight [music] in the court of. law and in the court of public opinion? The AG appointed special prosecutor has. also faced criticism over reported. [music] public statements. Can she. remain on the case? Lot of legal. questions to get into and we're going to. talk about it right now. Welcome to. Sidebar presented by Law and Crime. I'm.

Jesse Weber. Can you silence an attorney who is. representing an alleged rape victim from. speaking out to the media? That is the. legal question now at the center of the. Cornell 7 alleged rape case. And I say. that because the attorney for one of the. accused, Diego Serabia, in Jane Doe's. lawsuit, is petitioning the court to. silence the attorney, more specifically. Jane Doe's attorney from making public. comments about the case. And I'm going.

to read you this affirmation that was. filed by Serbia's attorney, James C. Knox, and then we're going to break it. down. But if you recall, what we're. talking about here is an anonymous. woman, Jane Doe, who claims that on the. night of October 19th, 2024 at the Ki. fraternity house at Cornell University. that she was drugged and then raped by. multiple men. In this lawsuit, it is. alleged that Serabia, more specifically, grabbed and kissed Jane Doe before quote. pouring lines of ketamine all over her.

body and snorting them. Now, she filed a. lawsuit against Cornell, Kyifi, the. various alleged men, the alleged. attackers, and we also know there was. currently a separate investigation being. conducted by AG Leticia James, the. special prosecutor appointed by New York. Governor Kathy Hokll. We know no. criminal charges materialized back in. the day. There were questions. surrounding that, including what. information the local DA had at the. time, Cornell's investigation, things. like that. And over the last week, everything has gotten a lot more.

complicated. We did a previous sidebar. on this because we went through these. apparent text messages, communications, interviews, questions about consent, timeline, drug use, and there has been a. lot of discussion about this case, the. legitimacy of Jane Doe's claims. As you. can see, when you go online or even if. you talk to people about this case, people have already come to conclusions. People have already taken sides one way. or another. And that brings me to what. is happening right now. this attempt to.

silence the lawyers in this case from. speaking out. Let me read you from this. affirmation. Again, this is from. Serbia's attorney, one of the defendants. in the civil case. Okay. Quote, "The. allegations are intensely sensitive and. have generated substantial public. attention. The court has already found. that information appearing in filed. documents was used by online observers. to threaten and dox a nonparty's family. after an erroneous address was. associated with the defendant." I'm. going to talk more about that. In its.

October 9th, 2026 decision and order, the court characterized the reported. threats and doxing as dangerous internet. vigilantism and cautioned that the. matter was approaching a point at which. malicious threats and possible physical. harm could impede the legal process. This order to show cause is brought on. an expedited basis because certain. council in this matter have been since. the inception of this case making. numerous statements in into the media. which individually and collectively are. likely to cause actual prejudice to the.

fair administration of justice in this. case. So essentially this means that. these defendants won't be able to get a. fair and impartial jury. And then we get. into the alleged comments at issue. Okay. Quote plainif's attorney. So, the. one representing Jane Doe, Thomas Jufra. on October 2nd, 2026 stated to CBS News. that Jane Doe quote didn't have consent. from the time she walked in the door. She was incapable of consent. That. during the alleged incident, Jane Doe.

quote felt like, you know, like a sex. worker just being shuffled from place to. place and a bit unable to stop it. Attorney Jufra told CNN on October 5th, 2026 that defendant Ki Chapter House. Association following the assault. alleged by Jane Doe held meetings with. the intention to quote cover up what had. happened. Attorney Drew told CNN on. September 28th, 2026 that Pliff's quote. life has been destroyed. Attending. defendant Cornell University was quote. her dream and it was taken away from her.

in a horrific fashion. Plainif is quote. barely hanging on. that Cornell forced. Jane Doe to attend a semester against. her will rather than give her a refund. Attorney Drew told CNN on October 4th, 2026 that quote, "We have apologies in. various emails. Police had quote. evidence of a crime from PLIT." Quote, "In this case, there really was a cover. up by Cornell and police." Now, to be. clear, that is just a sampling of what. they claim. Juer has said Knox lists a.

lot more out there. And this actually. brings me to a larger point. Generally. speaking, sometimes we just can't show. you like every text message, every. communication, every allegation. We're. kind of limited in what we can do here. That is why we have the case file. section on the Long Crime Plus app. So, we're basically opening up the evidence. vault on all these big cases. So, you. can inspect the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes, all firsthand. Plus, you get adree streaming of all. your favorite law and crime and court TV. shows. And right now, if you're.

interested, we have a special offer with. my promo code Sidefall. You get your. first three months of Lawn Crime Plus. for just $2.99 a month. That is 50% off. the regular monthly price. So, if you. want to check it out, now's the time. Go. back to this affirmation. It says, quote, "The statements have resulted in. or coincided with the following: threats, harassment, publicity, or risk. of prejudice to our client and more. generally all defendants. Statements. such as the above deliberately publicize. plaintiff's perspective, view of the. facts, and interpretation of the.

evidence. The requested relief does not. seek to restrain the press, close court. proceedings, or prevent public access to. judicial documents that remain publicly. available. It is directed only to. participating attorneys and parties. whose public communications can be. regulated without prohibiting neutral. procedural information or communications. necessary to litigate the action. A. restriction confined to statements. presenting a substantial likelihood of. material prejudice. Non-public discovery. material, personal identifying.

information, and communications. encouraging harassment is necessary. because of the expansive and extensive. media campaign which Pliff's council has. engaged in to advertise, publicly. advocate for, and to disseminate his. client's position and perspective in the. media. In short, plaintiff's attorneys. media blast was not merely an organic. result of inquiry, but has been an. orchestrated campaign from the outset. Interim relief is warranted pending the. return date because there appears to be.

no end to Pliff's ongoing media. campaign. The case is in its infancy. Certain parties have yet to even appear. No answers or responsive motions to the. complaint have been filed and no. discovery has been commenced. So. essentially, you're talking about a gag. order, right? Is this going to work? Before we even get to that, Thomas. Jufra, again, the plaintiff's attorney, Jane Doe's attorney, responded to this, according to ABC News in a statement.

responding to the motion. Ju said, quote, "The defense has tried to rebut. the claims in this case by engaging in a. wholesale leaking of confidential. documents, giving interviews, calling. Miss Doe's story into question, and. calling her lawsuit immoral. These. attempts to shift the narrative have not. been successful. The defense is now. attempting to silence me and Miss Doe. because we have been so successful in. rebutting their ineffectual attempts to. undermine her story. Truth always wins. out." Now, separately, there's something.

else going on. We know that there is. another issue regarding public comments. because now at least two of these. accused, two of these men are asking a. court to remove AG James, who I. mentioned before, from the. investigation, from the case because of. comments that she seemingly made. What. am I talking about? So, this is before. she was appointed special prosecutor. She said, quote, "What this young woman. has been forced to endure is horrific. and unacceptable to her and all other.

survivors. You're not alone. We stand. with you." The argument being that she. prejudged the case without looking at. all the evidence that she's already come. to a conclusion. Is that inappropriate. for a prosecutor, a special prosecutor. to do? Does that show a level of bias? Should she be removed from the case? Is. that going to work? As I said, a lot of. legal questions we want to get into. Now, if you're watching this and you're. into content creation or you're putting. things out on social media, have you. ever wondered how we're able to stay on. top of sharing so many clips of the. cases that are happening right now? Well, we use something called Opus Clip.

I think you're going to love this. because Opus Clip is an all-in-one AI. editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any. platform. You can turn one video into. multiple pieces of content across all of. your social media channels. Plus, with. Opus Clip, you're going to spend less. time editing and looking for those best. moments so you can focus on creating. Visit opus.prosidebar. Sign up, upload. In minutes, you'll have. perfectly edited clips to help reach the. people who will love your content. Use. OpusClip as your source for Tik Tok,

shorts, reels. This is the most powerful. tool to edit like a professional. Go to. opus.pro/sidebar. to get a free week, then 50% off for the. next three months. That's opus.pro/. Pro/Sidebar. Okay, so I have a special guest to talk. about this. This is somebody who. practices law in New York, in New. Jersey, has handled sexual assault cases. in the past. I'm joined by attorney Oleg. Neckritten. Um Oleg, thank you so much. for taking the time to talk about this.

and the specific issue. So, let's start. right here. What is the legal standard. under New York law for restricting an. attorney or attorneys from making public. comments in the media during a civil. case during litigation? >> The the standard, Jesse, and it comes. from the rules of professional conduct. is substantial likelihood of materially. prejudicing the trial. Now, what what. does that mean? It's up to the judge. The most famous example that I could.

give you is uh when President Trump was. on trial in the hush money case and uh. the judge in that case issued a gag. order preventing President Trump from. attacking the judge, his law clerk, witnesses, etc. Other than than that. instance, it's granted extremely rarely, especially in civil cases like this. >> Well, here's the thing, right? This case. is different. This case is unique. There. are already so many rumors and theories. and conclusions and potentially. misinformation out there. Does attorney.

Jufra or even the defense attorneys I. should say rather don't they have a. right to defend their clients in the. public? This is not just a case in the. court of law. It's also the case in the. court of public opinion. I mean this is. the case that I feel is a unique outlier. if there was a rule to suggest that you. know attorneys shouldn't make comments. But to me, it seems like this is one. where they have to now. They should have. the ability to say what they need to. say. >> I I agree with you 100%, Jesse. Uh if.

you look at what's been said by both. sides, the cat is out of the bag. Uh I. think the average person now, unless. you've been living under the rock, is. very familiar with the allegations, very. familiar with the defenses. It's not. like one side is using the media to its. advantage and the other side isn't. Um, this case involves a matter of public. importance, how universities investigate. very serious allegations. Um, I I agree. with you 100%. That's why if a judge.

does issue a gag order, it has to be as. least restrictive as possible. For. example, the actual order to show cause. the the the language they are requesting. is um preventing parties from disclosing. personal identifiers or potential. witnesses. I don't think anybody's going. to have a problem with that. But in. terms of making comments generally about. allegations about defenses, I don't. think a court is going to go that far.

Um Mr. Gaffra has obviously done a great. job presenting his client's case in the. media. That's why this motion is being. filed. If the defense thought that uh. Mr. Gaffra was was uh hurting his. client's case, they wouldn't have filed. this. So uh all credit to Mr. Gaffra, he's playing the media like a fiddle and. uh the defense is clearly nervous. That's why they filed this motion. >> But to play devil's advocate, to go to. the other side, right? You don't want. you don't want to taint a future jury. I.

mean, you want a fair and impartial jury. and and I and I think the concern would. be that if there is no restriction put. on public comments, it could improperly. influence jurors. They may get a a. misconception. They may get uh you know. what you're hearing is a one-sided. commentary on this from him, right? And. you don't want that. So, I can. understand the idea of putting some. restriction in place. I guess the. question is how would it how would it. work? So, if a judge puts a gag order in. place and then an attorney does an.

interview, what would they be allowed to. say? What wouldn't they be allowed to. say? I mean, and and what is it then? The other side is going to look at every. media interview and say, "Oh, you. crossed the judge's line. You crossed. the quarter." How does it work exactly? Like, what could potentially a gag order. be here? >> Jesse, you make very good points. And. practically speaking, that's why it's so. difficult to issue a gag order that. could work in this case because again, it's a matter of public importance. Both. sides are using the media to their.

advantages. And I think if a gag order. is issued, it's going to be very. limited. Obviously, Mr. Gafra wants to. present his case in the most favorable. way to his client. As a plaintiff's. lawyer, his job is to get public opinion. on his side. I understand the goal is to. um have a fair uh have a fair trial, but. as a lawyer, if you could kind of tilt. public perception in your favor, you. have to do that. At the same time, if. you're the court, you've got to respect. uh a party's first amendment rights uh.

to to speak, to make comments, to uh. present their case. At the end of the. day, we have to essentially rely on jury. instructions. We have to rely on Vardier. and try to pick a jury that's fair. Everybody's going to have heard about. the case when the trial commences. People are sophisticated. They know that. lawyers are spinning and uh all you can. do as the judge, as the parties when you. start trial is to pick people who you.

think are going to give you a fair. shake. Um that's all you can do. >> Here's what I was thinking, too. You. tell me if I'm wrong about this. The. more an attorney speaks about their. client, Jane Doe, does that risk. stripping her anonymity, does it risk. backfiring? Why do I say that? So, I. kind of saw this in the Diddy case, right? You had all these people filing. lawsuits against Diddy anonymously. And. there was at least one judge who said, "Well, look, you know, you put it out. there. You filed a lawsuit. A defendant.

has a right to know who's making these. accusations and we're going to strip the. anonymity. If you want to continue with. this litigation, you're going to be. publicly identified, which can. disincentivize someone to actually move. forward with the litigation. If an. attorney speaks so much about their. client, could that risk Jane Doe, a. court saying Jane Doe has to publicly. identify yourself? >> Jesse, 100%. In this specific case, however, I would say that um Mr. Gafra.

and his client, they both knew that when. this lawsuit was filed that, you know, she was going to be doxed. The media, other individuals, they were going to. disclose her identity. She's a very. intelligent young woman. She very. difficult to get into Cornell. He's a. very experienced lawyer. A decision was. made before the lawsuit was filed that. eventually who she was was going to come. out. It it has already come out. It's. already on Reddit. It's already in the. media, on the internet, etc. But one. thing that's interesting that I find.

that's kind of worked to uh the. advantage of Mr. Gaffrey and his client, in that if you go on Tik Tok, you go on. Instagram, what do you see? You see. people posting reels stating, "I am Jane. Doe. I am Jane Doe." So, in a way, it's. kind of galvanized people who believe in. the Me Too movement and uh who believe. that quote unquote victims should be. believed, etc. It's galvanized them. I. think Gafra and his client, they're. sophisticated enough to know her. identity is going to be leaked. She's.

eventually going to have to make. statements to the media uh without the. cloak of um Jane Doe. >> One of the reasons why I'm curious. whether or not the court is going to. grant this gag order is, you know, they. they raise a really serious issue. There. was a member of the Marine Corps who has. the same name as one of the accused in. this case and had to ask the court for. help because he and his family had. apparently been harassed, received death. threats. So the judge in this case.

agreed to seal some of the filings, called out quote misguided vigilantism. The judge wrote, "This court strongly. condemns the reported acts of threats. and doxing, which can only be. characterized as brash, reckless, and. ultimately dangerous internet. vigilantism. Our society has developed. procedures and legal mechanisms over the. course of centuries to ensure justice. and due process are afforded to all. When certain actors decide to work. outside those robust and developed. frameworks, innocent people often get. hurt. That is precisely what has.

happened here." So, it makes me wonder, is the court going to say, "This case is. taken on a life of its own. We have to. put some restrictions on what's being. said out there for the safety of those. involved, for the safety of anyone. involved." It makes me wonder whether or. not the the court's going to say, "We. got to we got to restrict what attorneys. say." Jesse, I there will be some. restrictions, but in terms of what those. restrictions are because this is a civil. case and because both sides have made. statements to the media, it's a matter.

of public importance. I just can't see. the restrictions being uh, you know, too. heavy-handed here. I think that the. issue with the marine point well taken. What the court can do is they can issue. uh an order preventing personal. identifiers uh from being released, etc. But yeah, that that that is clearly a. concern that the court's going to have. >> And I also wonder if it sets a. precedent. Look, we live in a day and. age of social media. It's it's different. than it's ever been. Any high-profile. case, people are going to have their.

opinions about. Does that now mean, you. know, because of social media, because. of information being circulated like we. see it, that no attorney in any case is. ever going to be able to speak publicly. about it because of how it can take on a. life of its own and people can act? I. mean, I wonder if that's like we're. going to see a change in the legal. profession because of this or we're. going to see a change in what advocac. advocacy means because of social media. >> I think you're right. And uh the. question it's going to be is can we have. a uniform rule? Probably not. Each state.

has its own licensing body and uh the. licensing body views what an attorney. can do differently uh than other states. For example, legal advertising. Some. states are very liberal with legal. advertising. Other states aren't. In. this specific case, a lot of the time. recourse is making a grievance or. complaint to the local uh ethics. committee. That's probably going to. happen. When you have millions of people. looking at the conduct of attorneys, there's going to be grievances and. complaints filed against every side.

here. >> By the way, I was also, it was. interesting reading this affirmation. Maybe I'm not that surprised. It's so. early in this case. They said no answers. have been filed. No responsive motions. have been filed. Certain parties haven't. appeared yet. Is that unusual to you? >> No, it's New York. Everything moves at a. snail's pace. Uh, yeah. Yeah. In fact, what's really interesting is I looked at. the docket this morning and the. defendants filed this as an order show. cause which is an emerging application.

and then about a day later they filed a. document agreeing to give defendants. until sometime in December to respond. So, uh to what extent is this. gamesmanship? To what extent are these. real concerns presented by the. defendants? We don't know. I mean. there's there's seven sets of lawyers. here. There's a plaintiff's lawyer. There's the University of uh Cornell. There's the Cornell University. These. are all experienced lawyers. There's. gamesmanship involved.

>> Uh it's it's going to be a very. interesting case. And then we got the. criminal aspect of it. >> Well, let's talk about that. Talk about. public comments. What do you make of. these attempts to get AG Leticia James. off the case because of her alleged. public comments? >> There's a famous lawyer in Jersey. He uh. once said that the most effective. defense is to put the government on. trial. So if you're the defendant, you. want to put the government on trial. In. this case, uh Leticia James, Miss James, we all know that she's a bulldog. She's.

not going to back away. She has her. opinion on the case. We we know of the. the tweet she put out. There's a reason. why Governor Hokll appointed her. I. think there's a there's a public. sentiment, especially towards the more. progressive side of the aisle, to. investigate this case and to potentially. charge individuals. It's not going to. work. The standard to get somebody. disqualified. uh as a prosecuting attorney, it's so. difficult. >> Can I challenge you on this? Can I. challenge you on this or challenge this. idea for a second? There's a difference.

in my mind after charges are filed for a. prosecutor to get up during a press. conference and say, "We believe X, Y, and Z. the evidence will show that this. person or these people did this. See it. all the time. There is a difference in. my mind before seeing any evidence, hearing any witness testimony, seeing. any interviews to make what is arguably. a conclusion about this and why it's so. problematic. Because a prosecutor's job. is not just to go forward with charges. It's to see where the evidence leads. And to me, it seems they're making the.

argument that she prejudged the case. And that shows a level of bias. And. look, at the end of the day, the. evidence is what it is, right? It'll be. whether it's proof beyond a reasonable. doubt. No, there's been no charges yet. But to me, it seems that's the problem. It's the timing of it. It's it's not. after charges were filed. It's before. she even jumped on it. And I think that. could potentially be a concern for her. No, >> you're 100% right. Would a typical. prosecutor make the statement that she. made? No, they wouldn't. Miss James,

she, you know, she's reported to have. interests in higher office. She's made. statements before about individuals that. she uh her office filed uh complaints. against. I can't argue with anything you. stated. I think that the the normal. prosecutor or the typical prosecutor. wouldn't do that. But at the same time, prosecutors have leeway. I don't see a. judge in New York County disqualifying. her from prosecuting the case. But. clearly, your concern is a valid one. It.

doesn't seem fair. It does give an. appearance of impropriy, but again in uh. New York, you have to show more than an. appearance of impropriy. You have to. show actual prejudice. >> Let me ask you one final question, overall question about this case because. you and I haven't talked about it. Um. strength of a potential criminal. prosecution. Why do I say that? I. mentioned a lot happened this past week. in terms of communications. There's. issues of consent. There's issues of uh. whether or not uh Jane Doe here. voluntarily allegedly took ketamine,

whether she was drugged, and can someone. consent to an initial sex act, not the. rest. And I think when you look at these. alleged communications, it's created a. complicated case. It's created a gray. case from what we see so far, and we. don't have the full picture. Do you see. this as a do you see charges on the. horizon here? >> 100%. As the old expression goes, you. could indict a ham sandwich. Here, uh. there's certainly enough evidence uh.

particularly the aspect of the case. where uh it is alleged that um the the. sex uh the sexual activities occurred. over the course of 7 hours and that. there were individuals there who uh she. may have not initially consented to. having uh sex with. the public outcry, Miss James being involved in the case. that it's not an accident that uh. Governor Hokll appointed her. It'll be. stunning if uh these individuals aren't. prosecuted. And what's going to be. interesting is does Leticia James have.

the patience to let this case, the civil. case, continue to have the plaintiff's. lawyers put all these young men on. record where you have their statements. which could potentially be used in a. criminal case or does Miss James or. Attorney General James or does she say, "You know what? I can't wait here. With. time, evidence grows stale. Plaintiff. may be tired from the civil case. She. just may want to give up if we drag this. out and she pulls the trigger. So, uh, it's it's it's going to be interesting, but they will definitely be indicted, I.

think. >> Well, I think that this conversation is. going to continue and I would like this. conversation to continue with you, Oleg. I really appreciate it. I really enjoyed. the conversation. So, we will see where. this goes. Uh, Oleg Nick Written, thank. you so much for taking the time. >> Thank you, sir. And that's all we have. for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. us. I'm Jesse Weber. [music] Speak to. you next time.