If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people assume you do. That's not always a valid assumption.
The American legal system specifies that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That is a presumption.
There is no such legal verdict as "innocent." The key word is "presumed," and a person has that right until his or her status is proven in a court of law.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is another popular legal term. And here we must define "reasonable." That's where lawyerly gamesmanship comes in. Or perhaps we should call it "mumbo-jumbo."
Politicians use that strategy often, as do real estate sales agents and lawyers. And this is based on the assumption that if you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. This, however, is not always a valid assumption.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is another popular legal term.
Define "reasonable." Here's where lawyerly gamesmanship comes in.
So even if a person faces scores of allegations spread over dozens of legal cases in several state and federal jurisdictions, he or she should be presumed innocent until and unless proven in a court of law.
Sound familiar?
The point is, such a person has not (yet) actually be proven guilty on any of the allegations, so he or she should be presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.
That person may not actually be innocent, but the system stipulates that he or she must be treated as such until and unless proven otherwise.
That's why the term "allegedly" is used as often as it is in journalism and legalistic jargon. Perhaps we can also use the term "allegedly innocent."
But no. That's based on an assumption of guilt.