Presumption of innocence is a legitimate appeal to ignorance enshrined in law

Evidence

It can be said that a classic appeal to ignorance is accepted in the law: in meeting one’s burden of proof in a trial. In criminal cases, for example, the defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1080

Categorization

• XREF: Surprising tension between this legitimate legal presumption and the fallacy just defined — a distinction worth tracking across burden-of-proof doctrine. — connects to: Appeals to pity are fallacies only when they are irrelevant to the decision type — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1038; Legality is more easily denied to the innocent than the guilty; Penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1055 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1080