For the reason I said. The jury believed her. Full stop. That they didn’t believe her FULLY, that is found the rape claim untrue, shows that they considered the evidence. That the appellate judges would have found differently doesn’t matter; again they do not weigh the evidence. I won’t send guess the decision not to testify, but one can hardly credibly claim one didnt have a chance to contradict the testimony if you don’t testify. Remember the burden of proof in civil cases is the preponderance of the evidence. Even if the jury thought it is only 51% likely she was telling the truth, that is enough. It’s just not a difficult standard to meet if the defendant doesn’t at least show up
I don’t think it was the 51% level, it was the higher requirement of “clear and compelling evidence
“1.7 Burden of Proof—Clear and Convincing Evidence
When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/48