It seems to be pretty much consensus at this point: he didn't do it. He's de facto innocent, regardless of the court outcome.
Why, though? Surely he could afford a top-shelf legal team? Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about the case beyond what I saw on the news at the time.
There was virtually no if any evidence.
It was a he said she said conviction.
I don't think he's innocent. He had a history of acting inappropriately with underage girls. I do think it was a little more than he said/she said.
Read this if it interests you.
https://www.indianapolismonthly.com/longform/down-for-the-count-lawyers-look-mike-tyson-rape-trial/
Has some solid points about why Mike convicted.
- Mike's lawyer was a white-collar crime lawyer and was completely inexperienced in criminal sex cases.
-Testimony from his limo driver that Washington was crying and in a disheveled, scared and panic like state on the drive back to her hotel.
- He had a prior incident with the limo driver where he lured her to his room, tried to touch her and exposed himself.
- The vaginal abrasions Washington sufffered were consistent with rape according to the medical examiner and in 20,000 cases, he had only seen two cases, where such injuries occurred during consensual sex.
- Tyson's cross-examination was an unmitigated disaster.
- Washington on the other hand appeared confident and sincere.