But even college students disagree on the language of consent. A 2015 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Washington Post found that 47 percent of current and recent college students said that someone undressing themselves signaled agreement to further sexual activity; 49 percent said it did not.

Defense lawyers did not necessarily paint a flattering picture of their client, who acknowledged having sex with the woman, despite the fact that she had been drinking to the point of vomiting several times. He also said that he had called his longtime girlfriend, with whom he had an open relationship, from the complainant’s bedroom.

But Mr. Khan’s lawyers pressed the woman on the witness stand about messages she had sent inviting Mr. Khan to dinner, or writing “lol” — short for “laugh out loud” — the morning after the alleged assault, when she woke up with bruising on her legs. Norman Pattis, one of the defense lawyers, asked if the messages indicated her interest in Mr. Khan. She replied that she spoke to everyone in that manner.

Mr. Pattis also asked about a screenshot that she had sent to Mr. Khan of a Shakespeare sonnet that seemed to imply a romantic interest. She replied that she had been joking; the screenshot was from a popular campus Facebook group, where jokes are often posted.

Dan Erwin, who handled jury selection for the defense, said that they had favored “older jurors, 30 to middle-age” because “there was a seriousness about them insofar as none of them accepted, condoned or denied the existence of misconduct, harassment or assault, but they all seriously engaged with the need for due process.”

The juror who spoke anonymously said that the panel had not focused on the banter or on Mr. Pattis’s suggestion that the woman’s Halloween costume had been too sexy. Instead, the jurors focused on evidence like security camera footage that showed the complainant and Mr. Khan walking back to her dorm room. The complainant had testified that the footage showed her so drunk that she was unable to support herself, her leg dragging behind her.

“We looked at and we looked at and we looked at that video of them walking,” the juror said. “We could not see her leg dragging. We could not see her eyes shut. We could not see what she said.”