KEY POINTS:
The jury in the Tea Ropati sex trial resumed its deliberations this morning after retiring last night without reaching a verdict.
Jurors indicated they would be unlikely to reach a verdict about 6pm last night, when they returned to court to ask a second question.
They told Judge Phil Gittos they wouldn't be able to reach a verdict and were feeling fatigued. They began deliberating at 1pm after listening to closing statements from defence lawyer Gary Gotleib.
The first question the jury of seven men and five women asked was an explanation of law related to charges of attempting to commit an offence, the second question relating to what procedure they should adopt when considering each of the charges.
A big group of Ropati's friends and family waited outside court for the jury to return.
Earlier in the day, Ropati's defence lawyer Gary Gotleib said Ropati couldn't be found guilty because his alleged victim didn't remember what happened.
Mr Gotleib called into question the Crown's portrayal of Ropati as a predator who was lurking in a bar looking for sex.
Ropati denies six charges of attempting to sexually violate the woman and sexually violating her in June 2006, after meeting at The Whiskey bar on Ponsonby Rd.
"They said he was looking for sex, luring her in stage by stage," Mr Gotleib said.
He told the court evidence showed people bought Ropati drinks but not plying the complainant with alcohol.
Ropati couldn't have known the woman had had so much alcohol before they met, Mr Gotleib said.
"Six hours of drinking and doing whatever they were doing with not much to eat. They then turn up at the Whiskey bar where Mr Ropati had no knowledge of what had been taken."
The woman's friend's testimony needed to be taken in the context they were "running scared" because they had been snorting cocaine that night.
The woman and the Crown were putting "spin" on what actually happened at the bar, he said.
The portion of the video from the back room of the bar that showed the woman apparently sleeping, or resting, was only one minute 47 seconds long.
"And there was no audio so we don't know what's being said."
Mr Gotleib said the woman was actually talking a lot during the scenes the jury watched.
He described the encounter as a "consensual romp".
Her memory was "tainted" and couldn't be relied upon when she finally gave a statement to police - five weeks after the alleged offending.
The jury heard Mr Gotleib detail expert testimony that the memory loss the woman suffered did not mean she was unconscious or asleep but simply that she couldn't remember what had happened.
Ropati had been co-operative and honest with police.
"This woman has done things she just can't remember. Don't be persuaded by her and the Crown who are beating it up," Mr Gotleib said.
He urged the jury to ignore any disapproval they might have that Ropati was cheating on his wife.
Before sending the jury on its deliberations, Judge Gittos said they needed to determine what witnesses had told them the truth and which ones had lied to them. He urged them to not pass moral judgments about the actions of Ropati or the woman and to consider only the facts.
