> Perhaps with the testimony of JSTOR he would've been acquitted.
Why? There's no rule that says that they need the victim's consent for criminal prosecution; the idea is that you have offended against the state, not a private actor (in which case the remedy would be civil, not criminal).
I didn't say the case would be dismissed; I said he had a decent chance of being acquitted. The victim testifying in the suspect's defense can have a powerful effect on a jury.
Why? There's no rule that says that they need the victim's consent for criminal prosecution; the idea is that you have offended against the state, not a private actor (in which case the remedy would be civil, not criminal).