I'm gonna have to quibble with this just a bit. In our system, since defendants are -- in fact -- innocent until proven guilty, a finding that someone has not been declared to be guilty, therefore, renders that they remain as they were before the trial: 'innocent' of the charges levied.
It goes both ways at once. The defendant is found not guilty by the jury, therefor he is innocent of the charges.
The jury didn’t decide that though. The jury decided NOT GUILTY. The judge reads the verdict. Guilty or Not Guilty. He doesn’t read Guilty or Innocent. And for that matter you are only PRESUMED innocent...not that you are actually innocent. There is a nuanced difference but a big one. Being found not guilty doesn’t mean you didn’t do the crime. Just that they couldn’t prove it. Being innocent means you didn’t do the crime.
That whole “innocent until proven guilty” is kind of passe anyway. It doesn’t apply to people the government doesn’t like.