The woman who previously accused Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter of sexual assault has formally withdrawn those claims in a 12-page declaration filed in federal court. Identified in the case as Jane Doe, she stated that Carter never raped or assaulted her, that she never met or spoke with him, and that there was no truth to her claims concerning him.

The declaration changes the posture of a related lawsuit brought by Carter against Doe and attorney Tony Buzbee. Carter had alleged that the defendants tried to pressure him toward a financial settlement. Following Doe’s recantation, Carter dropped her as a defendant in that suit.

This is a significant legal development, but it is also a reminder that a court filing is a formal statement by a party—not a judicial finding after a trial. Doe’s declaration is her sworn account of why her prior allegations were false. The supplied information does not establish a final resolution of every remaining issue in Carter’s lawsuit or any claims involving other parties.

What Jane Doe’s declaration says

Doe’s filing is unambiguous about Carter. She wrote that he did not rape her, that she had never met or communicated with him, and that he had not engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her. She also acknowledged the harm her prior accusations caused Carter.

“Shawn ‘Jay-Z’ Carter never raped me. I have never met or spoken to Mr. Carter,” Doe wrote in the declaration, adding that there was “no truth” to her claims against him.

Her new attorney, James Blair Newman Jr., said Doe is herself a sexual-assault victim but was wrong to identify Carter as the person responsible. The statement attributed to Newman says that the allegations involving Carter were false and that Doe offers an unconditional apology to Carter and his family.

That distinction matters. The declaration does not say Doe fabricated the fact that she was assaulted; rather, it says she falsely identified Carter and now says she had never encountered him. It is possible to report that distinction plainly without treating the filing as a broader statement about unrelated allegations or people.

How Doe says the claim began

Doe said her claim originated after she saw an advertisement in fall 2024 seeking people with sexual-assault allegations involving Sean “Diddy” Combs. She further stated that a lawsuit filed in October 2024 against Combs was filed without her knowledge and without what she described as independent investigation, background inquiry, or due diligence by her lawyers.

In the declaration, Doe said that by January 2025 she had begun questioning her claims involving Carter. She also wrote that she started doubting whether she had attended a party with celebrities at all.

Those statements are central because they describe Doe’s current explanation for the previous accusation. They should not be confused with an independent reconstruction of events. A declaration is a written statement filed in a court matter; it can carry serious legal consequences, but it is different from evidence tested through cross-examination at trial or a court’s ultimate factual ruling.

A recantation is a withdrawal or repudiation of an earlier statement. Here, Doe has done more than express uncertainty: she has stated that Carter was not involved and that she never met him.

A declaration is generally a written statement submitted in litigation, often made under penalty of perjury. It allows a person to place their account into the court record. Its submission does not automatically mean a judge has ruled on every assertion within it.

Meanwhile, Carter dropping Doe as a defendant means he is no longer pursuing his lawsuit against her. Based on the supplied information, attorney Tony Buzbee remains connected to the case, and the available material does not describe the status or outcome of claims involving him.

The $1,200 payment and polygraph interview

Doe also addressed money she received from her lawyers in connection with an interview and polygraph examination. She said she was provided $1,200 to take part in an NBC News interview that included a polygraph test, and said she never received the test results.

Buzbee characterized that money as “petty cash” intended to cover travel and meals. Doe separately stated that she was not promised compensation, and did not receive compensation, for recanting her claims against Carter.

The distinction between expenses and payment for testimony is important in public discussion of legal disputes. The available account presents competing descriptions of the $1,200: Doe describes receiving the money in connection with the interview and test, while Buzbee describes it as expense coverage. No additional documentation or ruling concerning that payment is supplied here.

Polygraph examinations, often called lie-detector tests, are designed to measure physiological responses while a person answers questions. They are frequently debated and are not a substitute for corroborating evidence or a court’s assessment of a witness. In this instance, Doe says she did not receive the results, so the supplied record provides no basis to characterize what the test did or did not show.

Why precise reporting matters in a recantation

Sexual-assault allegations and recantations both demand careful language. The material supports several specific points: Doe has filed a federal-court declaration; she says Carter did not assault her; she says she never met him; she says she received no compensation for retracting the allegation; and Carter has dropped her from his lawsuit.

It does not support broader claims about every person mentioned in the surrounding litigation, every allegation connected to the original advertisement, or the status of any remaining legal questions. Treating one filing as proof of unrelated facts would go beyond the record.

It is equally important not to erase the detail provided by Doe’s attorney: she is described as a victim of sexual assault whose identification of Carter was mistaken. The declaration’s core claim is therefore narrow but consequential—Carter was not the person who assaulted her, and her accusations against him were false.

For Carter, the recantation directly addresses a highly public allegation and the reputational damage that can follow one. Doe herself wrote that the consequences to Carter could not be fully undone. Her withdrawal has also led to the immediate procedural result of Carter dismissing her from his suit.

For readers following high-profile entertainment disputes, the useful takeaway is to separate confirmed procedural steps from arguments still being litigated. The filing itself is a concrete court-record development. Whether it resolves Carter’s remaining claims against others is a separate question not answered by the information available.

What remains clear—and what remains unresolved

  • Doe has recanted her accusation against Carter in a federal-court declaration.
  • She says Carter never assaulted her and that she never met or spoke with him.
  • Her attorney says the allegation identifying Carter was false.
  • Doe says she did not receive or expect payment in exchange for the recantation.
  • Carter has dismissed Doe from his lawsuit against her and Buzbee.
  • The supplied material does not state that the remaining claims in Carter’s case have been resolved.

The development arrives within a wider pop-culture landscape where public narratives can move much faster than legal processes. For a very different look at how music stories are documented over time, see Joking Joystick’s coverage of Joy Division’s “Eternal” box set.