A useful summary of what should be obvious but isn’t, from a reader:

In law school, my Constitutional Law professor Akhil Amar frequently reminded us that the presumption of innocence is a courtroom presumption only. That is, before any evidence is introduced by the state, the jury in a criminal trial is bound to assume that the defendant is innocent. They are to to make no presumptions of guilt based on the fact that the defendant was arrested, indicted, and brought to trial. If the states presents no evidence, only the presumption of innocence is left, and the defendant must be aquitted.
However, outside the courtroom no such presumption is required. Hence, an employer may fire an employee for stealing from the supply closet without first obtaining a theft conviction in court. A student may be disciplined or expelled from college if marjijuana is found in his room by an RA – despite the fact that no criminal charges are brought. Likewise, outside the courtroom we are free to speculate about the guilt of defendants before trial, or even after an aquittal (after all, an aquittal only signals that the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – not that the defendant was innocent. Hence O.J. was aquitted, but later found liable for Nicole Brown’s death by a civil jury who had only to find the plaintiff’s case more probable than not).
It betrays a serious misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence to insist that we must refer to Brian Nichols only as an “alleged criminal” until he is convicted. Witnesses saw him commit his crimes, there are official records of his transfer to the court, and he confessed his crimes to his kidnap victim. Those following along at home are certainly entitled to draw the logical conclusion regarding his guilt.