Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.

actually, it's a mere presumption. as a matter of due process, you're guilty whether or not your found so in a court. the decisions by a jury are irrelevant to the fact of any acts you may or may not have committed- or the reasons behind them. Which is why we have innocent people that have been locked away on charges they didn't commit, and people who get off on charges we all know they did. Jury trials are a shitty way to find justice- the other ways are universally worse, mind, but that doesn't mean its great.

Back to the matter at hand, we've all seen the video. We all know what was happening. I was able to find this document providing a brief overview of CO's sex offenses. the two that apply are on page 19.

Public Indecency:

• Performing in a public place or where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public, an act of sexual intercourse; a lewd exposure of an intimate part of the body, not including the genitals, with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person; a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or a knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301, C.R.S.)

• A subsequent conviction of a knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301 (2)(b), C.R.S.)

and:

Indecent Exposure

• Knowingly exposing one's genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person; knowingly performing an act of masturbation in a manner which exposes the act to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (1), C.R.S.)

• Third or subsequent incident of knowingly exposing one's genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (4), C.R.S.)
  (emphasis mine)

The first is a shoe in. we all know that she was wanking him off. proving it might be a different matter, but we all know it. Ergo, it's completely legitimate to say she's a sexual offender. Worse, not that I know if it matters legally, kids were exposed to this. All that to say: yes she should get due process in court. No. that presumption doesn't change the fact that she's a sex offender.