Lack of evidence of something does not equal evidence of non-existence of said thing.
A woman who spent 17 years in a California prison for a murder she didn’t commit was declared factually innocent Friday, clearing the way for her to collect about $600,000 in compensation from the state.
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/1686476/judge-declares-woman-who-...
Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime.
In the US, the accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The defendant in a civil case is presumed not liable unless the plaintiff can prove by preponderance of evidence that they are responsible.
Under those standards, without evidence, the defense wins. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if they are innocent or unprovably guilty. Al Capone [probably] wasn't innocent, but he was not found guilty of anything until they tried to get him for tax evasion.
Proof of culpability is required in both civil and criminal cases, though the standard of proof.is different.
> so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence.
Absence of evidence of guilt isn't evidence of innocence, though absence of evidence of guilt makes a not guilty verdict nore likely. The presumption of innocence means that innocence is the default conclusion in the absence of evidence, it doesn't change what is or isn't evidence of innocence.
That's quite the fantasy, isn't it?
You're not wrong, but you're also significantly overstating the risks to prosecutors. Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct. http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutor...