TSJ Thread

[727ill]

Gonna be honest guys, shaming by the media is not what we need to worry about if Shannon plays with a felony rape trial looming. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the university and frankly college athletics. If players are able to TRO on their own university for sitting them while actually have charges of felonies precedents are being set. Let alone if he is found guilty. Underwood could be a victim of all this. I am extremely nervous for the outcome of this and I have not seen anywhere actual evidence that TSJ is not guilty. Caution, caution, caution....He is also my favorite player on the team and I want him to be innocent and have a long NBA career, as a program that is the best outcome. The risk of playing a person that is ultimately found guilty of any level of sexual assault just to get some wins is too much for me.

The only scenario in which I feel comfortable with TSJ not playing again for this team is if the DNA test showed that he did indeed finger the victim (regardless of the consent discussion).

If his DNA was not found on the victim, he should be playing full stop.

 

[s261]

no. this is the hearing that would happen in 10ish days if the judge grants it. this would be the big one, the permanent one where he would likely be with the team the rest of the year. Both sides would have evidence to present and then go from there

Are you saying if he loses today Judge ignores the his rule of the case and grants permanent relief later.? The ten day rule normally applies to a TRO without notice. Ain't happening. A TRO can stay in effect while parties seek discovery, In fact they specifically ask for expedited discovery.

 

[Flyin' Illini]

Here's the U of I's response

Chat GPT, summarize this for me.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

At this point I’m simply operating under the assumption that TSJ is done for the year and as an Illini. Doesn’t mean I think he’s guilty but I don’t see this getting any less messy without the charges being dropped especially as we get more info surrounding the TRO request and the University defending their policy as we should’ve expected

 

[JSpence]

II. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in its Entirety.

Certainly doesn't read like a university trying to cut a deal with the player.

Okay? Do you think the school ought to be transparently winking and nodding their way through some conspiracy to use the courts as PR cover? The school already has in its power to allow Terrence to immediately resume team activities. Whether or not there is a conspiracy among administrators to say one thing and do another, "the school" is not a singular mind with a singular motivation. Smart people are paid good money to protect the state's flagship educational institution and its students, and we should expect them to do that.

The country would see and rightfully ridicule anything but a full-throated defense of an excellent policy designed to protect the legal interests of all involved. Nobody would get what they want, and then the REAL lawsuits would commence.

 

[jacekpardol]

Gonna be honest guys, shaming by the media is not what we need to worry about if Shannon plays with a felony rape trial looming. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the university and frankly college athletics. If players are able to TRO on their own university for sitting them while actually have charges of felonies precedents are being set. Let alone if he is found guilty. Underwood could be a victim of all this. I am extremely nervous for the outcome of this and I have not seen anywhere actual evidence that TSJ is not guilty. Caution, caution, caution....He is also my favorite player on the team and I want him to be innocent and have a long NBA career, as a program that is the best outcome. The risk of playing a person that is ultimately found guilty of any level of sexual assault just to get some wins is too much for me.

What have you seen about this case makes you think he will be found guilty? I'm surprised they felt they even had enough to press charges and I think was only because of a DA that is a zealoous idealogue.

Flip the script, TSJ is found innocent and he missed his shot. There is potential liability to the university(see the Duke case), I would imagine there would be some media outcry, I think it would destroy our relationship with CPL coaches, etc...

 

[jacekpardol]

At this point I’m simply operating under the assumption that TSJ is done for the year and as an Illini. Doesn’t mean I think he’s guilty but I don’t see this getting any less messy without the charges being dropped especially as we get more info surrounding the TRO request and the University defending their policy as we should’ve expected

It's been a rollercoaster but I'm with you. I've gone from "done", to "not done" like 5 times but yeah, he's done pending a miracle.

 

[Illiniguy13]

Gonna be honest guys, shaming by the media is not what we need to worry about if Shannon plays with a felony rape trial looming. This is an extremely dangerous situation for the university and frankly college athletics. If players are able to TRO on their own university for sitting them while actually have charges of felonies, precedents are being set. Let alone if he is found guilty. Underwood could be a victim of all this. I am extremely nervous for the outcome of this and I have not seen anywhere actual evidence that TSJ is not guilty. Caution, caution, caution....He is also my favorite player on the team and I want him to be innocent and have a long NBA career, as a program that is the best outcome. The risk of playing a person that is ultimately found guilty of any level of sexual assault just to get some wins is too much for me.

There doesn’t need to be any evidence that TSJ is not guilty. We of course want that, and hope there is such evidence, but the burden of proof is on the DA to provide and present evidence that TSJ is guilty, not the other way around

 

[s261]

I'm a civil litigator with experience with TRO's but no experience with the nuances of education law/Title IX/etc. If I had to wager, I would say the TRO will be denied.

I think the University makes a compelling argument that TSJ's conduct was not a university activity. This is important because, if correct, Title IX will not apply to TSJ. TSJ argues it was a university activity because Hobson, a grad assistant who is also his roommate, accompanied him and Harmon to Lawrence, and further, Hobson was directed by Illini staff to accompany TSJ and Harmon. In response, U of I says Hobson is a student-manager who has no supervisory role over TSJ, and a coach only asked Harmon to drive TSJ and Harmon because of the long drive, quick turnaround, and the fact TSJ had been involved a motor vehicle accident before where he fell asleep while driving. U of I says it provided no expectations or instructions for what TSJ, Hobson, or anyone else was to do while in Lawrence. The U of I supports this with an affidavit from Geoff Alexander.

Without Title IX protections, it seems the dispute really boils down to whether U of I followed its DIA policy and afforded TSJ due process. On the DIA policy, U of I argues that, under the policy, receipt of "credible information (such as an arrest warrant) of a potential 'Major Offense' authorizes Whitman, as Director of Athletics, to take interim action to withhold a student-athlete from athletic activities pending review by a Student-Athlete Conduct Panel ("Panel")." U of I goes on to argue that the "Panel is not an investigative body and is not asked to determine whether the alleged misconduct occurred; rather, it considers information available to it at the time it convenes to determine whether that information justifies withholding the student-athlete from some or all athletic activities pending final resolution of the charges at issue." The U of I says the criminal charge was "credible information of a Major Offense resulting in DIA taking interim action pursuant to the DIA Policy."

As for the process, U of I argues that it gave TSJ appropriate process because it notified him and gave him an opportunity to be heard, TSJ and his attorneys requested and was granted a delay in the Panel's reviw, and TSJ and his attorneys submitted to the Panel a letter and ~50 pages of exhibits, which the Panel considered.

Ultimately, it seems the U of I is saying that the criminal charges triggered the interim suspension and the DIA Panel is not really there to determine the merit of those charges. The U of I says: "The DIA Policy reflects that an arrest and criminal felony charge do not occur without serious evidence (including probable cause attestation and judicial issuance of a warrant), and for this reason, credible information of a major offense like an arrest and criminal charge must be taken seriously and may require interim action that continues while the charges are pending. Even in such serious cases, the student-athlete is given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, if any exists, that an interim suspension is inappropriate, and the Panel will weigh that information in making its determination."

I hope I'm wrong.

Also, there had been discussion in prior threads about the time of the incident and when TSJ left Lawrence. The U of I's response confirms TSJ had to be back in Champaign by 8:00 a.m. for an NIL event the day after the football game. Hobson's affidavit seemed to state that they arrived back in Champaign at 4:30 a.m., though it was unclear whether Hobson was saying they left Lawrence at 4:30 a.m. or arrived back in Champaign at 4:30 a.m. Not sure how that affects anything if TSJ was observed on the bar's surveillance cameras at around the time the incident alleged occurred, but, on its face, the times certainly do not appear to add up.

What is the justification behind the DIA policy? It expressly states it is to protect the University. It is for public relations. Is Shannon going to finger someone on the Court? And do you think its normal for lawyers to be suspended when they face felony charges? A property interest is a property interest. This is not a right he surrendered through collective bargaining. In fact, we should address the elephant in the room. These guys are not "students." I once won a case on unconscionability and the policy is unconscionable.

 

[DRS]

Have you seen any actual evidence that he is guilty though? Genuinely asking

of course not. this is a court case its not a public exam. That is simply not how things work. Whether you like it or not these are charges not allegations. There is a huge difference. I mean they hold people in jail for months that are proving innocent of all charges let alone playing in the Big 10. TSJ needs to focus on getting these charges dropped or at the very least reduced. Felony rape is jail time. What he is doing now reeks of a lawyer stunt and I don't think that is wise. There is very little chance that a university hasn't thought all this through and have some padlock tight policies. If it gets granted this will be ground breaking.

 

[NarrowJ]

There is language in the University response to the TRO that indicates there is more evidence/discovery that's yet to be provided to TSJ's defense team. That doesn't sound great. I wonder how long the prosecution is allowed to hold on to it / not share it.

 

[SuperintendentChalmers]

Chat GPT, summarize this for me.

I'll try:
1. Title IX does not apply: it was a purely personal trip.
2. Though the idea seemed to start with Geoff Alexander, student manager's presence does not imply any UI connection, he was a friend/roommate helping out with a long drive.
3. Shannon agreed to the discipline policy and has not lost his scholarship, training table rights, etc.
4. The panel does not have any investigative purpose or authority.
5. The panel is not a mere rubber stamp and has lifted suspensions, including one involving alleged sexual misconduct.
6. When DIA learned of allegation, Whitman consulted the Chancellor, School Counsel, OSCR, who all agreed that evidence was too flimsy for suspension.
7. When charge was brought, Whitman went to the same authorities, who all agreed at that point suspension was merited.

 

[Flyin' Illini]

TSJ needs to focus on getting these charges dropped or at the very least reduced.

I would assume this is being approached from all possible angles. I'm sure they are trying to get the charges dropped, but pursuing all other options at the same time.

 

[DRS]

What have you seen about this case makes you think he will be found guilty? I'm surprised they felt they even had enough to press charges and I think was only because of a DA that is a zealoous idealogue.

Flip the script, TSJ is found innocent and he missed his shot. There is potential liability to the university(see the Duke case), I would imagine there would be some media outcry, I think it would destroy our relationship with CPL coaches, etc...

I don't and I hope that is proving to be the situation. Plain and simple. He needs to beat the charges. I'm not very concerned with him playing the next couple of games at all.

 

[theNewGuy]

Vegas has the odds set for the TRO being granted at +1000

 

[chief]

There doesn’t need to be any evidence that TSJ is not guilty. We of course want that, and hope there is such evidence, but the burden of proof is on the DA to provide and present evidence that TSJ is guilty, not the other way around

What direct evidence does the DA have on TSJ? The DA has the burden of proof = "beyond a reasonable doubt." Given the allegations and charges, there is a limited amount of evidence here that would allow a reasonable person to not have doubt about whether TSJ is guilty = DNA, admission, video tape. The Affidavit falls woefully short. Am I missing something here?

The Burden of Proof​

The burden of proof is a requirement for one party in a trial to provide evidence that shifts the opinion and conclusion away from the opposing party’s position to one’s own position. How convincing the evidence needs to be to accomplish this in a court of law varies according to the type of trial. While the burden of proof necessary to convict a person of a crime is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a much lower standard of proof is required in civil matters.

• Preponderance of Evidence – The evidence in a case is convincing that the facts as presented by one party are more likely to be true than not true. In some cases, the standard is held to a greater than 50 percent chance that the facts are true.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence – While the requirement of clear and convincing evidence there is a high probability that the facts as presented by one party are true. While this seems very similar to the preponderance of evidence requirement, the requirement for clear and convincing evidence is actually a higher standard of proof.
• Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – The evidence presented by the prosecutor in a criminal trial proves the defendant’s guilt to such a degree that no reasonable doubt could exist in the mind of a rational, reasonable person.

The reason the burden of proof in a criminal trial is so strict is that, while a civil trial may result in the defendant being ordered to make monetary payment, a criminal conviction may result in the defendant being deprived of his freedom, or even in his death.

Free TSJ!!

 

[Snoopy]

So I don’t understand the focus on whether or not the University blessed the trip. The question at hand is the University’s response. There is no doubt the University imposed the suspension. I mean if one argues the University isn’t responsible since it wasn’t a sanctioned trip, wouldn’t that imply the University has no need or right to act at all in the case.

 

[jacekpardol]

Vegas has the odds set for the TRO being granted at +1000

not good...

 

[RML]

Without Title IX protections, it seems the dispute really boils down to whether U of I followed its DIA policy and afforded TSJ due process. ... U of I goes on to argue that the "Panel is not an investigative body and is not asked to determine whether the alleged misconduct occurred"

Is the university really saying that the panel didn't try to assess whether the alleged rape actually took place? It seems to me that whatever "due process" means, if you are going to take action based on some allegation, you ought to consider whether that allegation is actually true.

 

[tatupu70]

What direct evidence does the DA have on TSJ? The DA has the burden of proof = "beyond a reasonable doubt." Given the allegations and charges, there is a limited amount of evidence here that would allow a reasonable person to not have doubt about whether TSJ is guilty = DNA, admission, video tape. The Affidavit falls woefully short. Am I missing something here?

The Burden of Proof​

The burden of proof is a requirement for one party in a trial to provide evidence that shifts the opinion and conclusion away from the opposing party’s position to one’s own position. How convincing the evidence needs to be to accomplish this in a court of law varies according to the type of trial. While the burden of proof necessary to convict a person of a crime is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a much lower standard of proof is required in civil matters.

• Preponderance of Evidence – The evidence in a case is convincing that the facts as presented by one party are more likely to be true than not true. In some cases, the standard is held to a greater than 50 percent chance that the facts are true.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence – While the requirement of clear and convincing evidence there is a high probability that the facts as presented by one party are true. While this seems very similar to the preponderance of evidence requirement, the requirement for clear and convincing evidence is actually a higher standard of proof.
• Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – The evidence presented by the prosecutor in a criminal trial proves the defendant’s guilt to such a degree that no reasonable doubt could exist in the mind of a rational, reasonable person.

The reason the burden of proof in a criminal trial is so strict is that, while a civil trial may result in the defendant being ordered to make monetary payment, a criminal conviction may result in the defendant being deprived of his freedom, or even in his death.

Free TSJ!!

Yes, what you're missing is that the University of Illinois basketball team is not a court of law. Being allowed to play on the team is not the same as not being convicted of a crime.

 

[jacekpardol]

I don't and I hope that is proving to be the situation. Plain and simple. He needs to beat the charges. I'm not very concerned with him playing the next couple of games at all.

Even if he's cleared of the charges he will already have served a life sentence of sorts by missing his shot to play in the NBA -sad.

Even if he's totally innocent, maybe it might he be worthwhile for him to accept a misdeamor charge just so he's ready for the NBA draft. Granted all the time off of competative basketball will kill his draft stock.

 

[PepeSilvia]

For those lawyers in the know, are we even talking about a 50/50 chance for the TRO to be granted? Or are the odds way less than that in TSJ’s favor?

I don't know if there has ever been a case like this in sports with someone charged with a crime.

We've seen transfer players get one in place this year(Raequan Battle), Michigan and Jim Harbaugh just had one denied, Ezekiel Elliot had one upheld to delay a suspension issued by the NFL for domestic abuse but he was never charged with a crime.

 

[chief]

Yes, what you're missing is that the University of Illinois basketball team is not a court of law. Being allowed to play on the team is not the same as not being convicted of a crime.

So your point is that it is a conditional privilege to play on the team and if a condition [i.e. criminal charges are filed against a teammate] is met in the subjective opinion of the panel, then the privilege is suspended pending further information.

 

[Old Farm Illini]

I'll try:
1. Title IX does not apply: it was a purely personal trip.
2. Though the idea seemed to start with Geoff Alexander, student manager's presence does not imply any UI connection, he was a friend/roommate helping out with a long drive.
3. Shannon agreed to the discipline policy and has not lost his scholarship, training table rights, etc.
4. The panel does not have any investigative purpose or authority.
5. The panel is not a mere rubber stamp and has lifted suspensions, including one involving alleged sexual misconduct.
6. When DIA learned of allegation, Whitman consulted the Chancellor, School Counsel, OSCR, who all agreed that evidence was too flimsy for suspension.
7. When charge was brought, Whitman went to the same authorities, who all agreed at that point suspension was merited.

I don’t agree with #2. Geoff didnt make that suggestion as a friend. He’s in a position of power and by default an extension of the university.

 

[DrMac210]

So I don’t understand the focus on whether or not the University blessed the trip.

Pretty sure that is all about the Title IX implications.