People have suggested that Kavanaugh cannot be found guilty in the absence of corroborating evidence, but that would be a more generous standard than is applied in the actual criminal justice system. A jury can generally convict upon the testimony of a single credible witness.
In fact, even if multiple witnesses testify that the event did not occur, the jury can still choose to "prefer the testimony of a single witness to that of many", Hourie v. State, 53 Md. App. 62, 74 (Ct Spec App 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted), and thereby convict.
If this were a criminal case, the question would be whether Dr. Ford's testimony — in conjunction with any other evidence that might be discovered — is believed beyond a reasonable doubt. A lack of corroboration would not inherently prevent a conviction.
A juror who is unwilling to convict, even when presented with credible witness testimony that makes out the elements of the offense, "has an agenda of his own ... which bears no relation to the law". Lee v. State, 206 SW 3d 620, 623 (Tx Ct Crim App 2006) (intern. quotes omitted).
See this thread for my analysis of Trump's recent Saudi–Kavanaugh comparison:
