Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Attorney: Jane Doe Displayed "Textbook Reaction to Trauma"; Renee Good Shooting Lawsuits. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired October 01, 2026 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:30:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, new details are coming out about the initial investigation into the alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house. The New York Times is now reporting on more than 1,000 pages of documents detailing the university's review, and it includes conversations Jane Doe reportedly had right after the alleged incident.

One of Jane Doe's roommates reportedly told investigators she did not use the words rape or assault when describing what happened that night. Another roommate said, quote, "I don't really remember her ever kind of citing that she had said yes to anything that occurred."

Here to discuss this and more is CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. Elliot, full disclosure, we are still learning more about how all of this played out, right? So, we're just able to piece this together from what has been released or reported on so far. But from your experience as a prosecutor, what stands out to you about how this initial investigation was carried out?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, number one, the absence of the words rape or assault coming from a victim are not relevant legally. And so, yes, it's a fair point to raise that this individual did not use those words at the time, but that's not the whole inquiry there based on everything else that's in the record.

[11:35:00]

Now, obviously, there are a lot of competing narratives that came up two or three or two years ago when the story arose, and it's starting to trickle out now. More than anything else, I think Cornell University has questions to answer here about what they knew at the time, what was available to them at the time, and what they provided to law enforcement. And that's starting to come out.

BROWN: And based on how the attorneys corroborated part of what the New York Times is reporting from the Title IX investigation, saying that basically she finally reached the point involved to reach the understanding that what happened to her, she believed, was rape. I know you say using that word isn't relevant, but tell us more about from just a criminal standpoint, how the evolution of what you experienced might be relevant. WILLIAMS: Sure, absolutely. It's an individual saying, and this is a hard word for many people to hear, and I'm sorry, but I was raped. That is a legal determination, and that's not really for that person to make. What matters is what happened there and what can be established, and was there either a forcible or nonconsensual or drugged act or whatever else that happened at the time.

Now, an individual's perception of that is relevant, of course, but really what matters is what they can establish and prove. And based on what we see here, those text messages, those Snapchat messages, conduct afterward, and the fact that Cornell felt the need to discipline people afterward and set up a task force, all seem to suggest that at a minimum, something really horrible happened that day.

Now, whether it can be legally actionable remains to be seen. And I know there are some questions. You and I talked about this just yesterday. There are some questions about voluntary drug use versus coercive drug use and some voluntary acts versus other ones, and so a lot of that's just being sorted out.

BROWN: I just want to follow up on this because it is so relevant to this case, and it's worth revisiting, that the mental incapacitation definition under New York law, and, you know, she admits in what we have seen in the statements she gave to police that she had been drinking even before she stepped foot in that fraternity house. So, even having been drinking before, having stepped foot and all of this happening, how could that even be relevant?

WILLIAMS: It's relevant depending on if rape is to be charged, which degree of rape is charged. Mental incapacitation would be relevant for second-degree rape in New York. Because the person voluntarily took the alcohol, that mental incapacitation just can't be proven. That's just the way New York law works. Now, first-degree rape, even someone who voluntarily drank or took drugs and did not have their faculties about them could absolutely be the victim of a sexual assault. It's just a different definition. They call that their -- it's not mental incapacitation, I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's got a different name for it.

BROWN: There's a distinction there.

WILLIAMS: Yes. If you are passed out and cannot consent to the acts you're doing, that is absolutely first-degree rape in the state of New York. And so, it's a lot of hair-splitting over the definitions of New York law.

BROWN: Well, I think it's relevant, though. And the D.A. claims that he did not get this other transcript that WCBS is reporting on where she allegedly says she was 100 percent raped. He says he didn't get that. But he also is saying from what he saw from the initial six-page statement that we've obtained, that there was nothing he could do legally. What do you say to this?

WILLIAMS: I don't know if there's nothing he could do legally. I think perhaps the definition is there was nothing that he felt he could win in front of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's very different than there's nothing I could do legally. The standard in criminal cases is actually quite high. And when there is a dispute as to what happened in any kind of criminal event, whether it's a sexual assault or something else, prosecutors have to be able to establish, can we win this at court?

Maybe at the time, based on what was available to the prosecutors at that time, they felt they could not go forward with a criminal investigation. But as you're teasing out here, there just seem to be so many gaps in what they were provided and when, and sort of the level of diligence or aggressiveness that either they carried out in the prosecutor's office or Cornell University did, that I think it's important to at least ask the questions now and revisit some of these factual questions that just seem a little murky and, quite frankly, sloppy in many circumstances.

BROWN: All right. Elliott Williams, thank you, as always, for helping us better understand the issue at hand. Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And just ahead, the family of Renee Good, the woman shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis this winter, is now suing over her death. They're speaking from Minneapolis right now. What their two civil complaints allege, that's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:00]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, the family of Renee Good just filed two civil lawsuits in a Minnesota federal court. Good was the mother of three who was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis in January. Her death sparked nationwide outrage and protests.

BLITZER: A lot of protests, indeed. And take a look at this. Live pictures coming in from a news conference that's now underway. This is Antonio Romanucci, an attorney for Renee Good's family. CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams is still with us right now. So, what stands out to you about these two civil complaints?

WILLIAMS: Nothing is surprising about these two civil complaints. We could have anticipated, Wolf, that there would have been a wrongful death suit filed by the family at some point -- or the survivors at some point. That is, you know, when someone, based on the intentional acts of a government actor, dies, they can file under what's called the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's the vehicle that allows it. And she alleges a number of things. It's battery, assault, you know, through the act of the firearm, false imprisonment, actually is one of the claims that they're alleging here.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was an interesting one, based on her partner having to witness it. They are adding that in as a claim. And then just negligence on the part of the officers. So, there's a few things here.

[11:45:00] And then there's some separate constitutional claims in an individual suit against the officers.

BLITZER: And, Elliot, one of the lawsuits that was filed, it was filed against the United States of America.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

BLITZER: And the second lawsuit was filed against a host of Trump officials, including the ICE officer who shot a man. The administration has suggested federal agents possess absolute immunity from state-led prosecutions. Does that apply here?

WILLIAMS: Well, that's wrong. They do not possess absolute immunity. Now, that said, it is exceptionally hard to sue federal officers, federal officers. Now, there's a weird quirk in the law, Wolf, that if they were state officers, they actually could be sued quite easily under federal civil rights law. We all remember Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis. The big claims there were under state law. It's different here.

So, this is a much more complicated suit. And I would assume that certainly the government is going to move to dismiss some of these claims and might even succeed on some of them just because the law is, for lack of a better term, hostile to individual suits against federal officers in their personal capacities, just a disconnect between state and federal law.

BROWN: And lawyers for the family say they're seeking a recover for Renee's estate for the immense suffering she endured and for the profound and permanent loss her death inflicted on her family. The complaint also seeks emotional distress damages for Becca Good, who was standing near the couple's vehicle when the ICE agent fired into it. How will the court determine those things?

WILLIAMS: That is really hard. Of all the claims here, because you can -- when we talk about assault or battery, they have very clear definitions. It's the unwanted touching of an individual or putting someone in fear of something. Assault versus -- battery versus assault.

Intentional affliction of emotional distress is when an individual has engaged in an extreme and reckless way and causes someone harm emotionally from something that they witnessed or perceived. Now, here, merely watching a violent act carried out by an officer, I think winning an intentional affliction of emotional distress claim is going to be quite difficult, just based on the kinds of things that people tend to win these for. I mean, you're talking about, not to be crass, but, you know, mishandling a corpse in front of someone is the emblematic example you get in law school for that particular claim.

Now, I don't want to diminish how horrific it must have been to witness such a thing here, but just what matters is what does Minnesota state law say and what do cases that have come up in the past in Minnesota establish. So, that's going to be the hard ones. Some of the other ones are just far more straightforward under the federal tort claims, like assault and battery, and so we'll see probably those prevail or at least settle.

BROWN: All right. Elliot Williams, thank you. Very busy day for you on the legal front.

BLITZER: And we'll have more news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:00]

BLITZER: A new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Associated Press found that rural voters are increasingly concerned right now about the rising cost of living and healthcare costs just ahead of the November midterm elections. This Sunday, The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper returns with a month-long embed inside a rural hospital in North Dakota, examining the workforce challenges facing the facility and the community it serves. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have had a job opening in the lab since we posted it in late August of 2025. I did a deep dive into how many applications that I've gotten. We received 31 applications directly online from the Philippines. All of them were very well qualified. We had 11 applicants from Nigeria. We had three applicants that were direct from Ghana. We had two very viable candidates. They were both American. We offered job offers to both of them. They both declined the job offers. Essentially, it was due to the fact that we're very rural.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. Let's go live now to CNN Senior National Correspondent Ed Lavandera. Ed, you got rare access to this hospital. What more did you learn?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this 30-day that we spent inside the West River Health Services Hospital in the small town of Hettinger, North Dakota, was really fascinating because this hospital and this place, as unlikely as it might seem to many viewers, I think across the country, kind of sits at this incredible crossroads of where we are in America in 2026. A rural hospital struggling and fighting to stay alive. Immigration debates swirling intensely all across the country as well.

And all of this kind of plays out here in this small community, which is kind of representative of communities all over the country. So, really grateful to the CNN documentary team that I got to work with on this project. We spent 30 days inside the hospital. The staff there and many members of the community that we've gotten to know so well have been incredibly gracious. They opened the doors. We really got to see what they experience in providing rural health care to a community here in Southwest North Dakota and parts of South Dakota as well as Montana, this massive area that they serve in this community.

And what we heard over and over again, guys, is that if it wasn't for this hospital, and many of the immigrant workers that are brought in to work there, that this hospital wouldn't be able to provide the services that it does, that many people would have to be traveling hours and hours to get adequate health care.

[11:55:00]

And they say without this hospital, if it were to wither away and not be able to do what it does, that the town would simply die. So, this is a fascinating hour. And I hope you tune in Sunday night.

BLITZER: We certainly will. Ed Lavandera reporting for us. Thank you very much. And to our viewers, you can watch more of Ed's reporting on the whole story with Anderson Cooper this Sunday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, right here on CNN. And the next day on the CNN app with an all-access subscription. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

BROWN: We'll see you back here tomorrow morning at 10:00 Eastern. Inside Politics with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]