The article said that there was no forensic evidence of rape. How did she explain that?
I would blame the prosecutors hoping for a win and a lame ass public defender who gets paid by the case and could not care less if his client is guilty or not.........
The article says he was acquitted at trial. That means it got all the way to a jury, and would have survived a motion to dismiss, which means that a judge (probably a Polk County racist like other posters have described) found that there was probable cause for the case to proceed, even with the exculpatory evidence. To sue for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove that there was no probable cause for the charge. Mr. Q has a tough row to hoe to prevail on a case against the accuser. It’s different than the Duke boys in NC, they were released by the state after investigation found a corrupt prosecutor essentially fabricated the charges.