There is a big difference between "Innocent" and "not guilty", and there is a reason that courts return a "Not Guilty" verdict, and not an "innocent" one. Plenty of cases fall within a hair's width of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and I very much doubt you are going to be inviting most of the people falling in that category over to meet the family, after all they are innocent until proven guilty, and likely all around great people right?
Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements is insane. The only obligations legal judgements place are upon the people being tried and the apparatus of the state, nothing else.
There is. Innocent means you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty, OTOH, means that the current presented evidence was not sufficient to determine that you did commit the crime, thus not meeting its burden of proof.
> Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements
I'm not saying you should have blind faith in the legal system, but I am saying that I think it's morally better to withhold judgment until it has run its course. Additionally, if you are otherwise unrelated to a certain case, I would still be inclined to have less trust in your own judgment than in the judgment of people who spent far more time on it than you, unless you have specific reason to believe they're especially likely to have ruled incorrectly other than not trusting the process, such as conflicts of interest.
Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements is insane. The only obligations legal judgements place are upon the people being tried and the apparatus of the state, nothing else.