I don't know anything about this situation, so this is hypothetical. Suppose that the editors who refused publication are personally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, perhaps because they know one or more of the victims personally. In that case, I think they have the moral right to refuse to have anything to do with him, like publishing work that he's a co-author of.

There is a (very small) number of people I refuse to have anything to do with, despite them not being convicted of anything. I mean, I'd still hit the brakes if they stepped in front of my car. But I wouldn't invest in a startup they were a co-founder of, which seems analogous to publishing a paper they're a co-author of.

Scientists sometimes talk as if certain journals have such a monopoly on a field that being banned from them is fatal to their career (and even to The Science.) But IDK, I've never felt like I can't read a paper if it wasn't published in a prestigious journal. The author should upload the paper to their website and email the link to colleagues, who can decide whether to read it or not.