For 14 years I prosecuted murder, dope, theft and sex cases. I never lost a jury sex crime, either a violent act of rape or a child molestation case. So I am confident they can be won before a jury if the evidence is there.
While I do defense work now, I do not take any sex crime cases. Having spent most of my professional life prosecuting cases on behalf of raped women and molested children, I don't have the emotional energy left to represent a person accused of a sex crime. I wouldn't care if it was my brother and I knew he was innocent, I just don't have it in me.
In this case, I can believe that Jackson was guilty. Did the government prove he was guilty? Apparently not. (From what I heard of the evidence, the case sounded weak to me). But I still believe that juries find the right answer, "Did the State prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?".
If the DA has other cases, I can't understand why he didn't bring one of them instead. Admitted perjurors DO NOT make believable witnesses.
It can be done. I convicted a guy of subornation of perjury (acquitted at his first trial) by the subsequent testimony of the perjurer herself, a witness I did not even have authority to compel to testify. I also got his previous "victorious" previous defense counsel barred from representing him in the second trial. In fact, by the time we got to trial the case was so solid he pleaded guilty to get a cap on sentence.
Corroboration is the key. You have to independently corroborate the h*ll of the case, but if you are willing to put in the time, you can do it, if the evidence is there.