Yes, that example would be correct. Essentially it's like this:
Guilty = court proves you did the crime.
Not guilty = court can't prove you did the crime but also can't prove you didn't do it.
Innocent = court proves you didn't do the crime
A clarification though, ordinarily criminal court is not interested in whether or not you are innocent, only whether or not you are guilty. You don't get an "innocent" verdict in a criminal trial, because you are already presumed to be innocent.
Being declared by the court to be innocent is a separate procedure, and is usually only done when circumstances require it. That is, a person usually only goes through the effort when they are faced with a situation where the presumption of innocence does not apply (appeals after a guilty verdict, or civil cases that involve acts that would otherwise be criminal). It's usually not done for civil cases as it's easier just to fight the civil case with the same evidence. It's more useful if you're expecting a multitude of civil cases, and want one piece of paper to shoot them all down quickly.
Thus, an innocent ruling is almost exclusively used for the purpose of overturning previous convictions.
For instance, let's say you were convicted for a crime you didn't commit. You appeal it, but the judge finds no problems with the trial, and doesn't declare a mistrial. i.e. the court did its job properly with the evidence it had. Your attorney, however, found evidence that definitively shows you didn't commit the crime. This evidence just was not available when the trial happened (if it was, and was improperly denied from being used in the trial, then a mistrial would be declared)
Or perhaps you took a guilty or an Alford plea to avoid a trial, because the evidence wasn't known of at the time. A mistrial would not be declared unless it was discovered that the prosecution intentionally hid the evidence from you.
The judge agrees with this and orders you released on the time you've served if it's within his power to resentence you to a shorter sentence. Or, he may agree that you didn't commit the crime, but mandatory sentencing length doesn't allow him to release you. Either way, you are *still* convicted of that crime, and you must go through a hearing process to be declared innocent in order for your name to be cleared and the crime to be removed from your record. Since you are not on trial for the crime, you do not have the presumption of innocence, and instead must prove your innocence to the court.
Scots law (i.e. in Scotland) *does* have a three-verdict system. "Guilty", "Not Proven", and "Not Guilty". In this case, "Not Guilty" is functionally closer to a ruling of innocence in the US. "Not Proven" is actually rather unpopular, but if they remove it, it will mean that the "Not Guilty" ruling will become more like the one in the rest of the western world.
