A Sullivan County judge heard oral arguments Thursday on whether New York Attorney General Letitia James should be removed as special prosecutor in the reopened criminal investigation into an alleged gang rape at Cornell University.

Judge James Farrell concluded the hearing without issuing an immediate decision.

The hearing followed a challenge brought by defense attorney Andrew Miltenberg, who represents Gillio Lopes, one of the men accused in the case.

Lopes is among seven former Chi Phi fraternity members accused in a lawsuit of drugging and raping a Cornell student at the fraternity house in October 2024.

Defense attorneys contend that comments James made on social media before her formal appointment show she had already formed an opinion about the case and presumed guilt, compromising the investigation’s neutrality.

“What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable,” James wrote on social media. “I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers. To her, and to all survivors: you’re not alone. We stand with you.”

Miltenberg cited those statements in court as evidence that James had demonstrated a predetermined bias.

“Whether it affects all or just one, either the court determines the statements made by AG James take her out of contention to be neutral party reviewing case or not,” Miltenberg argued, describing the early public comments as the case’s “original sin.”

A spokesperson for James’ office told Fox News on Thursday that the claims were unfounded. “As indicated in our motion before the court, these claims are without merit. The Office of the Attorney General remains committed to conducting an investigation guided only by the facts, the evidence, and the law.”

Assistant Attorney General Kaitlin Vigars, representing the state, defended Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision to appoint James. She argued that public comments by themselves do not satisfy the legal standard required to disqualify a prosecutor.

Vigars said removal would require evidence of actual prejudice, not conjecture or unsubstantiated allegations of bias.

Farrell questioned Vigars about the events surrounding James’ appointment. He asked whether Hochul knew about James’ social media post, whether James and Hochul were together when the governor referred to the “brave young woman,” whether those circumstances raised professional-conduct concerns, and whether avoiding bias was the reason for appointing the attorney general.

The judge also expressed broader concerns about the legal process, including the possibility that separate courts could issue conflicting decisions if challenges to the investigation moved forward in different jurisdictions.

“If multiple judges come down with decisions that’s chaos,” Farrell said from the bench, “and the court should not fashion chaos.”

Hochul appointed James special prosecutor on Oct. 1 after intervening to bypass the local Tompkins County district attorney, who had previously declined to pursue charges.

Farrell did not rule at the end of Thursday’s hearing. He is expected to issue a written decision in the coming days determining whether James will continue as special prosecutor or whether the investigation must be reassigned.