...all you really have to do in an affidavit or complaint is establish probable cause (the 'more likely than not' 50+1 standard).
...it is possible but it would seem strange, given the high profile, to hold that sort of evidence back...
50+1 is a preponderance if the evidence, not probable cause, which is whether there are facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense was committed. It is more than a reasonable articulable suspicion, but less than a preponderance.
Thanks for your input. I guess that leaves me where I started, meaning I think the case doesn't appear strong at this point, and I'd like to believe TSJ's camp that it's ridiculous, but I'll have to wait and see before passing judgment either way.
Unfortunately the rumors made me think the case was even weaker, so I'm not inclined to believe everything I hear in his favor. I was expecting some convoluted claim of misrepresentation, or an accusation that was inconsistent with video/gps, or anything else that could get the case thrown out or clear his name and lift the suspension. Given that the case seems very plausible to me, I hope TSJ has something that truly exonerates him, not just reasonable doubt in a he-said/she-said situation.
I'm also curious: if the court merely requires the university to give him the opportunity to defend himself against the suspension, what would his lawyers say? Is it possible they have exonerating evidence that they would present to the university in private that they don't want to reveal publicly for some reason? It seems strange that they wouldn't want to publicly clear his name ASAP (or alternatively that they would risk revealing something in private if they didn't want it to get out before the trial), but IANAL. But if all they have to lean on is reasonable doubt against the public charges, I don't see much hope of the university lifting the suspension, especially since the university can't presume to know everything that the DA knows.