What is far better for the defense, is for the victim to be fully cooperative for the state under direct testimony and then to fall apart under the defense attorney's cross examination. This works even better if the witness has given a deposition that conflicts with the trial testimony in some way.
The state will prep their witnesses and if a witness said something in a pre-trial deposition they don't like they will prep the witness to gloss over it or ignore it. A good defense attorney will pounce on that. I just love crossing hostile witnesses.
Defense counsel can also ask questions that the state would never ask that would call into question the veracity of the witness before a jury, especially like getting into details the witness would not have thought of answers for if the testimony is perjured.
It is like a loose thread on a piece of clothing. Pull at that thread long enough and the entire thing comes apart.
I almost always go with a trial by jury if there is a viable defense except for really horrible crimes where the emotions of the jury would go against a valid defense. Don't do those though.
But obviously you are not equipped to play lawyer. You are better off leaving it to the professionals.

