That's an unintentional effect of the fact that prosecutors only tend to charge people they believe are likely to have committed a crime. Therefore, merely charging someone is to some extent prejudicial. That's partly why burden of proof standards exist. To reassure someone of the efficacy of due process after a charge has been leveled is tantamount to announcing your personal view of guilt, given the nature of the system. It's like looking at a football game between evenly-matched Teams A and B (52-7, 4th quarter, 5 minutes left) and stating that the rules allow for Team B to come back. Well, yes, but my friend would be forgiven for expressing discontent at your implicit assertion that the refereeing has been fair that game.

Are with hunts/trials really a new thing though?

"She's a witch!"

"It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place."

"He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")

Stallman's resignation in a nutshell.