“If it is her word against his, and he chooses not to give evidence — for whatever reason, good or bad — the jurors must decide that she is telling the truth.”
If the jury must decide that way, how come the diocese hasn’t been sued into oblivion long before this? That’s the part I don’t get. I’m not saying this particular case doesn’t have merit, or even that they are suing for monetary damages, but how come less reputable people haven’t done exactly that long ago or whenever this law changed to allow it?
Freegards
There's no "IF." The jury has to decide that way. You have only the girl's evidence, and the priest's silence. That silence cannot be construed as a rebuttal. As a matter of fact, the normal injunction that it has to be regarded neutrally might not even hold, since the defense can argue that the church's defense of the Seal shields a testimony detrimental to its material interest.
but how come less reputable people haven’t done exactly that long ago or whenever this law changed to allow it?
The laws in most states protect evidence given in specific kinds of confidence. [BTW, none of the protections are actually absolute, not even the attorney-client privilege, which is the oldest privilege recognized in law. It actually predates Christianity.] However, the "mandatory reporting" laws are relatively new, and they were specifically passed in many jurisdictions to keep priests, schoolteachers, social workers, and others who work with people the law does not consider legally competent from withholding evidence of a crime.
You will see more of this, and it's likely that cases like this and the Federal case law it produces will lead to model laws with better protections for confidants, children, or both.