Do juries ever "find innocent" then? My understanding is that innocence is presumed until guilt proven, in which case a jury simply not finding them guilty is sufficient to say they're (legally) innocent.
That's why the opposite of "guilty" at trial is "not guilty". Someone who is not guilty is not necessarily innocent, even of the charged crime, but there's not enough evidence there to find guilt.
Interestingly, in Scotland (but not the rest of the UK) there's still the third choice of 'Not proven' which indicates that there is not enough evidence (or a problem with the evidence) to prove guilt, whereas acquittal is seen to be a finding of innocence.