Little Danny wrote:
Testimony from the alleged victim about who raped her would be Direct Evidence. Hearsay would be evidence from a third party saying the guy admitted to them he raped her. In a Civil Case (suing the state for money) both forms of evidence potentially would be admitted fro the juries consideration. The judge would instruct the jury to rule on the greater weight of the evidence.
The State's defense in this case would be simple; they relied on the alleged victim to be truthful. A reasonable person would expect a victim not to lie.
That isn't very good logic. In a case like this I think it's presumptuous to assume that one party is a victim until the cases have been presented and decided.
I hate how anyone who says they are a victim is automatically assumed so until proven otherwise. They should have to prove something happened.