Based on the evidence presented to the jury in court and the nature of the charges, none of it was reasonably convincing. The case revolved almost entirely around the claims of the accuser and if the jury didn't believe him, there was virtually nothing to hang their hats on.
In any criminal case, there will always some evidence of guilt - after all you don't get to trial without having some good reason to believe in the defendant's guilt. There simply wasn't enough evidence here to get a conviction.
When the verdict was not based on the evidence, an infinite amount would not change a thing.
They could have gotten him on the alcohol charges, but decided to wash their hands of the entire deal. Snedden, the DA, said when he heard 'not guilty' on the second count, he knew they'd find him not guilty on everything.