If the story is accurate, I agree. If it is a typical newspaper story, then I do not agree.
There's one statement in the story that I think sums it up:
"[Defense attorney Sanger] told me, 'The best defense was no defense, because it would demonstrate there's nothing to defend,'" she says. "We made a mistake."
The defense attorney was incompetent: apparently all he did was try to poke holes in the prosecution's case, and did little or nothing to defend his client.
Faced with no alternatives, the jury must have accepted the prosecution's thin evidence at face value. Was it enough to exclude "reasonable doubt"? Not for me, but I wasn't on the jury.
Drunk girl makes an accusation against a guy but cannot remember the details. Blood alcohol level that had been at least 3xs legal limit during the night.
None of his DNA on her.
Her DNA is found on him consistent with her grabbing his package.
Another guy’s DNA is found on her panties but he’s not considered a suspect.
Bite marks that don’t match him.
Contrarian discovery findings not passed on.
No blacks on the jury.
A last minute person comes forward and another sexual complaint is levied before trial (how convenient) but he’s acquitted of the charge.
Do some research on the % of rape charges that turn out to be phony and this looks like one one of them