Second Jury. First jury didn't buy it.
According to commentary up thread, the women's testimony was changed from "he gave us drinks and we felt woozy" in the first trial to "He drugged us" in the second trial, but with no proof of this claim.
Allowing the witness to say "he drugged us" when they previously only testified "we felt woozy after drinking" is a quantum difference, and without proof, the judge shouldn't have allowed such a prejudicial statement.
Allowing the witness to say "he drugged us" when they previously only testified "we felt woozy after drinking" is a quantum difference, and without proof, the judge shouldn't have allowed such a prejudicial statement.
At first trial the witnesses were not permitted to state they were drugged. At second trial they were permitted. The change in rulings does not impute aznything to the witnesses. Perhaps the judge was working on avoiding a second hung jury.
It might be good for an appeal and mistrial.