Not guilty is a million miles from innocent.
By what definition? By what authority do you make this assertion?
I've given you the dictionary-definition, which you have yet to dispute, and how it makes "not guilty" the same thing as "innocent".
Your philosophy is precisely why, legally speaking, our country has such a messed up judiciary -- to rule the Affordable Care Act Constitutional was for the Supreme Court to rewrite that law [as passed] and find that rewriting to be its justification. Likewise the reasoning in Wicard v. Filburn -- that some crop grown and never sold on any market impacted the intra-state market [by the lessening of demand] and thereby impacted the inter-state market, and could therefore be regulated by congress -- is logically void: there was never any commerce to begin with. Gonzales v. Raich was ruled so that someone growing marijuana likewise impacted the interstate commerce despite the fact that any inter-state commerce is illegal, and therefore there is no interstate market to impact. Kelo is another example, the Supreme Court declared that imaginary numbers (a projection), never actualized (the private company it was given to never built there, therefore never generating the projected tax-revenue), fulfilled the legal justification for imminent domain.
Or would you declare that New York's gun ban isn't an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, because some legalistic turd somewhere says it isn't? Hell, that action is treason, as defined by the Constitution, because it deprives the militia of the arms it needs to do its duty.