Absence of evidence only means that there is not sufficient evidence to pronounce the defendant guilty. It is not evidence of innocence. They are not the same.
In the US, the accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The defendant in a civil case is presumed not liable unless the plaintiff can prove by preponderance of evidence that they are responsible.
Under those standards, without evidence, the defense wins. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if they are innocent or unprovably guilty. Al Capone [probably] wasn't innocent, but he was not found guilty of anything until they tried to get him for tax evasion.
You are never declared innocent, only not guilty. Functionality they are similar as you can't be tried for the same crime. But, being declared 'not guilty' is not useful in a civil case related to the same issue.
A woman who spent 17 years in a California prison for a murder she didn’t commit was declared factually innocent Friday, clearing the way for her to collect about $600,000 in compensation from the state.
Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime.
