It would be interesting to know on what basis Judge Amy calibrates Conrad's bail: he's posted $21 million, as opposed to the $5 million Enron's Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were obliged to put up after their own convictions. The US Attorney's position is stated below: Once all the various suits are settled, "most of the assets that Mr. Black owns will be owned by somebody else." So much for the presumption of innocence in US courts.
The presumption of innocence ceases at the moment of conviction. The court has found him guilty and the only matter left to determine is the length of his sentence. It is an act of generosity to allow him freedom on bail. Many convicted felons are sent straight to jail without that option. Not jailing him did not indicate any shadow of doubt about the rightness of his conviction. He was not freed pending appeal.
Indeed there are many poor black men who are indisputably innocent except in the eyes of the law, who remain incarcerated, some on death row, while the state or federal attorneys cook up new theories of how they still could be guilty based on the evidence accepted to date by the courts. The US appeals system has no presumption of innocence - quite the reverse
Indeed soon after completing the first go at this, I came across a story on the BBC about a man who is white but is, like Black, British - and has spent 20 years on death row - and has been found by the courts to have been wrongly convicted - twice.