Why is "innocent until proven guilty" becoming more difficult to keep a part of the US judicial system?

[hi i am]

[Judith]

I don't think that is the case - besides it only applies in a COURT of law. The public and the police are free to consider a person to be guilty whether its been proven or not. It is only in court when everyone (except the prosecutor) must consider the accused to be innocent until the prosecutor PROVES guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if I want to consider OJ guilty of two murders it is my right even though a jury thought he was innocent (talk about a miscarriage of justice). I also happen to believe that Robert Blake and Lizzie Borden were guilty of murder also in spite of the fact that they were acquitted. Obviously the prosecuting attorney didn't override the "innocent until proven guilty" in those cases as well as Hernandez in the Trayvon Martin case so "innocent until proven guilty" is alive and well in our courtrooms today or they would all be behind bars where they belong.

[xpatinasia]

It isn't.

[marshhawk]

Because of the social media, every one was "there when it happen" and
they are the" expert" when it comes to that given state law, knows all of the evidence, and therefore knows the out come of the trial.
Judges and juries are fickle and both the Defense and DA do make mistakes in presenting their side of the story and evidence.