OJ was found not guilty. He was not found innocent. You are confusing a very important concept in law. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It means that the prosecutor failed to prove the case, not that the accused was innocent of the charge.
That may be true. But that reply is also avoiding the point of the discussion. Unless you are saying that only those found innocent should be reimbursed for the legal fees and those found not guilty should not.
To me, that is splitting hairs. If the person is found not guilty, the state brought charges they could not prove just the same as if that person were free after being found innocent. I do not think someone that is found innocent, not guilty or that is acquitted with charges never to be brought again should be financially wiped out defending themselves.
"Gee, we are sorry, I guess the jury and/or judge does not think you should be punished over these charges. We know you have lost your house over the legal bills. That's too bad. Tough luck." should not be the way it is.
Ok, I'm way off topic here, but aren't we "innocent until proven guilty?" And if someone is not proven to be guilty they must therefore be innocent (in the eyes of the law)?