I've finally had the chance to read TJ's TRO pleadings and the documents attached to UIUC's motion to remove the case to Federal court. As nearly as I can tell, UIUC has not yet filed a reply concerning the TRO.
Full disclosure, I am a retired lawyer, and I feel at least a little over my head here. I think TJ has a decent chance of prevailing on the argument that his rights have been effectively abrogated permanently (i.e., too long to matter) without receiving any sort of due process in the review.
My concerns are twofold:
1) Not an awful lot of due process seems possible here. UIUC can give him a hearing where he is entitled to present evidence and require witnesses to testify under oath, but at the end of the day, there are precious few witnesses he can call that really matter. He cannot compel the alleged victim, or her friend, or anyone else in Kansas to appear and testify. That leaves him with a bunch of documents like police reports and witness statements. These are all hearsay, and I confess I really don't know how they come in or if they can be kept out. If they are kept out, one might argue the alleged victim is the one being denied due process.
2) More basically, after reading the reports and statements, I think TJ has close to zero chance of getting the Kansas court to dismiss this case unless either the DA or the alleged victim have a major change of heart. It looks to me like the documents, once verified by their signers, establish probable cause that TJ committed the charged offenses. If that is the case, I see no way of keeping this case from a jury (many months from now) absent a plea agreement.
We know what the alleged victim alleges. The following facts support those allegations:
A) Her phone (and presumably TJ's phone) and The Jayhawk's video records show they were in the same room at the same time.
B) While the video records do not prove he did anything, they likewise do not prove he did not do anything. There are times when both are in the room and off camera at the same time.
C) TJ has a very distinctive appearance. That makes her identification of him that much more credible. She says she remembers he had dreadlocks and that two of them are dyed different colors.
D) By far the most important is this: While her friend did not see anything happen, she states that as soon as they left the bar, the alleged victim burst into tears and said she had been sexually assaulted. The victim's conduct throughout is not inconsistent with what can reasonably be expected from a victim under similar circumstances.
This leaves us with a "he said; she said" set of facts and no good way to tell who is and is not telling the truth. That is exactly why we have juries. Once the case gets to the jury, there is no good way to know who will win, but we can be pretty sure it will not get to a jury before the NBA draft. Even assuming TJ plays for the rest of the Illini season, it is hard to imagine any NBA team using a first round draft pick on someone who might be in prison for the remainder of the following season.
TLDR: TJ may be entitled to a much better hearing process than he has received so far, but I find it hard to imagine he will be drafted in any event.