Hard to Prove? This shit wasn't going to be hard to prove, it was going to be a slam dunk defense attorney's wet dream. But you want the prosecutor to try the case anyway. It would have cost him resources out of a limited coffer. It would have cost jurors at least 2 days of missed work, if you JUST count the trial and don't take into account the jury selection process. All of that and the worst part, some that you oh so sensitive and caring people don't understand, it would have forced the victim on the stand to talk about her sexual relationship with the accused. While rape shield laws protect a woman from having her entire sexual past brought up, it does not keep the defense from talking about her sexual relationship with the accused, and I can promise, a defense attorney would have had a blood feast on that alone. All of this for what would have ended in an acquittal. Not worth it. Someone has to do a cost-benefit analysis and part of that cost is the retraumatization of the victim. I love how easy it is to talk about this in a vacuum. I have had to actually conduct interviews of a real life rape victim that my client was accused of being the rapist. It sucks, you have to go into all the details. You have to question her identification of your client when the only time she saw her attacker was while she was being raped. Then, if it goes to trial you get to do it again. Only the most calous mutherfucker on the defense bar can do that without being affected. When it is done, and it ends in an acquittal, it is worse for the victim, because she thinks the jury did not believe her. Rarely is that the case, what the jury thinks is that the state didn't have the evidence. So when the state KNOWS from the beginning they don't have the evidence to get a conviction then yeah, they should decline to prosecute.
