Under our system that means he should be considered innocent of it.
This conversation is messy mostly because people are refusing to do that, which is akin to vigilantism.
A good faith discussion should only involve the charge he was convicted of and pardoned for, which is the narcotics charge.
Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges.
There can be whatever reason he wasn't convicted, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't and presumed innocence is the legal default.
That should be "considered innocent by the legal system". People are still free to come to their own conclusions--and act on them--even without a jury rendering a verdict.
Rather famously, for example, OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of murdering his wife. But most people these days would agree with the statement that he murdered his wife.
Which is what matters when determining sentences.
> People are still free to come to their own conclusions--and act on them
People are definitely not free to act on their conclusions. That's vigilantism, what the comment above was referring to.
You don't become guilty or innocent based on legal proceedings. The point of a case is to establish guilt for the purpose of punishment.
But an innocent person doesn't become "guilty" even when the evidence shows that in the court. A guilty person remains guilty whether a court can prove it or not.
The prosecutors later used that evidence as support for their sentencing request after Ross was convicted of only non-violent offenses, which has a much lower standard of evidence. The allegations of murder-for-hire were never tested at trial. They may have evaporated under cross-examination by a competent defense. Our system of justice holds that Ross is innocent of those allegations unless convicted at trial.
For purposes of random citizens saying "he tried to commit murder", no. We're absolutely not bound by that same standard of proof.
Nope. This doesn't mean anything, and the charges can be picked up again.
Oh wait, no. He was pardoned completely.