Yea, but he wasn't on trial as a criminal. That was a congressional hearing on whether he should be approved or not and the dems just used that women to try and stop his appointment.
For someone to be prosecuted criminally they have to have some proof or evidence of a crime being committed. A lot of people are unjustly convicted in cases with next to no evidence but this is just a result of corruption in the system and not a flaw in the system itself. They especially use this tactic in traffic cases where the only witness and evidence of anything is the testimony of a cop. In reality this should not hold up in court because you need at least 2 witnesses in a case where no other evidence exists, but in traffic court people are found guilty all the time merely because a cop said so. This is just for revenue generation.
I remember being in court one time and this lady was being charged with running a red light and she plead 'not guilty', and claimed she did stop at the light. The State didn't present any evidence, no video, no pictures, just the cops word. The judge literally said to her "well, I believe the officer is telling the truth so I'm finding you guilty" and then fined her. This sort of corruption happens all the time and even in major cases dealing with murder, rapes, and other things. Good lawyers eat these sorts of cases for lunch though. Sadly, most can't afford to pay a good lawyer the many thousands they demand to represent you. So, people end up with court appointed lawyers who do little to fight for you and you end up convicted based on nothing.