In American criminal law, the term "innocent" is not a verdict that a jury can return. Instead, the only possible verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty". No one can declare you innocent because new evidence may come up later finding you guilty.

Because like someone else said - innocent is the default state. Being found not guilty automatically means you're innocent. Any other read of this is invalid.

Anyone not guilty is presumed innocent. That which is presumed does not need to be declared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

No it can’t, that would violate Double Jeopardy.

No, that is about a court re-trying someone, which they cannot do. The evidence itself may well prove their guilt.

The point being that a lack of evidence of guilt is not evidence of a lack of guilt. But we require evidence of guilt for convictions, not a lack of evidence of innocence (in criminal cases, and if it's not an affirmative defense).

If they have been found not guilty (given) when exactly is this newly found evidence going to convict? That’s the point of double jeopardy.

It didn't say "convict", it said "prove". Evidence can prove someone guilty even if a court is unable to do anything about it.

> In American criminal law, the term "innocent" is not a verdict that a jury can return. Instead, the only possible verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty". No one can declare you innocent because new evidence may come up later finding you guilty.

As the person to whom you responded said, there is such a thing as a determination of factual innocence. See, for example, the relevant section of Utah's legal code: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter9/78B-9-P4.html . I can't see at a glance whether a jury or only a judge can grant such a petition, but, even if a jury can't return such a verdict, that's different from saying "no one can declare you innocent."