the issue at trial is really not what a lot of people want to frame it as, it's strictly to determine whether she was or was not too drunk to consent. if she was sober enough to consent, there's no crime; if she was too drunk to consent, it's gang rape. you have to be very careful when having sex with drunk people.
as it is, there's apparently a video where she consents, which i find to be very strange. it indicates that there's no mens rea on behalf of the players, as they asked the woman to film herself consenting. however, it also forms the key and really only relevant piece of evidence. i have not seen this video, but it should be relatively obvious to determine if she was able to consent by analyzing how drunk she is in it. if there's any slurred speech or lack of coordination at all, i would find them guilty, but if she consents by film and appears to a reasonable person to be sober enough to do so, then there's no crime to analyze, there's just somebody that made a decision they regret and are embarrassed about making and are looking to evade responsibility for.