The author omitted to present the fact that before she was in the cab, the woman was able to text with friends, hail a taxi and remove money from her wallet to pay the driver.  The judge reportedly recognized  that the woman was operating at some level of capability immediately before entering the cab at 1:09 am, and commented that the prosecution presented no evidence about what happened between then and 1:20 am.  
I've seen nothing of what the cabbie presented to explain his state of undress, the DNA on his lip or his actions with the urine soaked underwear, and nothing that further specifies whether the woman's pre-1:09 am texts were coherent or more indicative of someone on the verge of black-out.
An appeal judge may provide a sober second thought on these very difficult facts.