I'd like to clarify something in your assertion above, maverick. Wherever you say innocent, I add the phrase "in the eyes of the court" following it.
It is the court and only the court that must maintain a clear lack of prejudice on defendants brought before them. Jurors picked for the trial become members of the court for the trial's duration, and must also be free from prejudice.
We the public like to see an unbiased media as well, but there's no requirement for them to be. Its just that they risk alienating a percentage of the population that feels like they're watching propaganda rather than news when they tune in. (Chase Carey: I'm looking at you here...)
Me? Not so much.
I can rely on circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and gut feelings all I want. Stereotypes are often based on solid observations. The prejudices they produce can save a person's life. That tingle you feel on the back of your neck while walking through Harlem in the middle of the night? That's not spidey-sense.
So when I see surveillance photos of someone looking suspicious and watch news reports of them in an armed confrontation with the police, I'm free to judge them all I want. Because I'm not in a position to deny them of their freedom or life; that's the court's job.
I say they're guilty, but that's just my opinion.
Your statement as I would fix it:
The person shot and killed by police is innocent in the eyes of the court for all time, because they'll never get their day in court. The young man caught by police and arrested, innocent in the eyes of the court, until proven guilty.