I attended a lecture with a well-known judge. He gave a brief history of our legal system. When it was set up there were two ways it could go. Presumption of guilt, where the indited had to proof innocence. Presumption of innocence, where the state had to prove guilt. At that time in England indictments where done in the name of the King, and parties had to prove their innocence.
Both systems have their flaws, the proper verdict may not be arrived at in each system. The founding fathers believed if an individual had to go up against the state, the burden of proving guilt should rest with the state. It was more tolerable to them that a guilty party might elude justice than that the state too easily convict innocent people.
I think they made the right choice.
Today we have some that are guilty being found innocent and even more alarming, innocent people being found guilty.
Your question, the presumption of innocence is a thing of the past.