> Innocence until proven guilty should mean the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove you actually looked at it right? It wouldn't be criminal, just ci

> Innocence until proven guilty should mean the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove you actually looked at it right? It wouldn't be criminal, just civil, and civil trials have much lower standard for the burden of proof. It's just preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), instead of beyond all reasonable doubt.