Most governors of US states can grant pardons or clemency for violations of state laws [1]. I don't know whether a pardon can provide a pathway to removal of a false charge of guilt.
This is why I explicitly teach my children that the law is not a moral code. I want them to understand the consequences of breaking the law and act with an understanding of the consequences, but they should follow their own moral code.
I was thinking of this the other day reading about all the patent cases that end up in Texas because it's easy to get biased judges. There are empty offices that the legal system recognizes as the headquarters of hundreds of companies. The justice system cannot handle this abusive "hack", and in general justice is only available to those with several hundred thousand dollars to spare.
So again, why should anyone care whether or not such a system considers a person "guilty".
While we could argue about the merits of doing so for someone who actually committed the crimes for which they were convicted, it seems obvious they should not apply to someone who is innocent of that which they are accused.
I should've clarified in my previous comment that I wasn't referring to public opinion and the news cycle when I wrote "a pathway to removal of a false charge of guilt".
My worry is that every time an employer or a government official does a background check on someone who was pardoned for a later-determined-to-be-wrongful conviction yet remains formally marked as guilty, the background check will bring up a misleading record that will tangibly affect the pardoned person's employment opportunities or exercise of legal rights. atmavatar gave some examples (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303300).