[gnicholas]

This is possible in the US. Imagine someone rapes a nun, and she testifies to it. She identifies the defendant, and in his testimony he denies it. If the jury finds her testimony more credible — to the extent that there is not a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — they can convict him.

Of course, it helps if there is corroborating evidence, but there is no rule that says one cannot be convicted (in the US) based on a victim's testimony alone. It just doesn't happen often because usually there is some sort of corroborating evidence of a crime, and because it's hard to eliminate all reasonable doubt without any.

[phicoh]

Maybe you can point to a case where literally the only evidence was the story of the victim?

(I would be really scared to live in such a country, that strikes me a a recipe for disaster)

[gnicholas]

Sorry, it's been a long time since I was a lawyer, and I didn't do criminal cases!

[mannykannot]

So, it is no different than for any other sort of accusation lacking corroborating evidence?

Is there evidence that this is more likely in sexual assault cases than others? Your post here [1] (and the post you are replying to) seem to suggest that it is actually less likely in these cases.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18590977

[gnicholas]

I think all cases that are based only/mostly on a victim's statement are very difficult to prove. In my other comment, I was pointing out that sex-based cases are more likely to be based mostly on a victim's statement than other cases.

[mannykannot]

Indeed - there seems to be an absence of empirical evidence for any more specific claim than that such claims are difficult to prove.