Based on your description of the facts, the judge was an ass for not acquitting the husband. There is no question that her new testimony provides reasonable doubt, in fact far more than reasonable doubt. Judges can be tyrants sometimes.
Yes, but reasonable doubt is what he did not see: "It does not, in the context of the totality of the evidence presented cause me to have a reasonable doubt." The question is, who is lying. The 2 witnesses in this case testified they found White and Decker struggling, with Decker halfway over the side, but as White put it, bluntly, if he “wanted to throw her overboard, she would have been overboard.”
But she says "She said she tried to make it look like he was hurting her, which is how they came to be struggling when the other two crew intervened." Thus the two witnesses are not lying in reporting what they saw, the two struggling, but if they said they White was trying to cast her overboard when he could have been trying to restrain her, then their conclusion is the issue.
In this case the charge is "trying" to throw her overboard, but even so, that does not mean he was actually intent on doing so.
In the Bible, 2 or 3 eyewitness are required for conviction, with false witnesses receiving the penalty their lying incurred, but the only manifest lying here so far has been with the wife. But if she wants to drop any charges, then i think the state should, minus court costs, unless they want to charge the wife with making a false report.