Yeah, I would think that we should have all learned by now that trial by public opinion or certainly by media doesn't mean a lot. From a PR standpoint, perhaps so, which is a genuine issue that has to be considered in a league that has public perception to worry about.
Even the resolution of a civil and/or criminal case is no guarantee that we actually would know any of the real facts. Just that the theatrics are completed and we have an ultimate result.
Your point was that it takes a conviction to dissuade you from wanting him--my point is that the image is the important thing--not the conviction. A conviction only tells you what 12 people (or so) thought and how good his attorney was vs. Prosecutors. Money tends to win in the courtrooms, but you want to use convictions as the only determination of his character-it as a excuse when it benefits your cause--but turn the tables, and it is a "terrible analog." Just exposing hypocrisy.
Does that simplify it enough for you?