I would convict, certainly.
The state's case:
1. Zimmerman noticed Martin
2. Zimmerman followed Martin
3. Martin ran
4. Zimmerman pursued Martin on foot
5. Zimmerman eventually made contact with Martin
6. Zimmerman and Martin fought
7. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin
There is substantial evidence for all of the above.
Zimmerman's case: Something happened between steps 4 and 5 that made step 7 legal. There is so far exactly zero evidence of the existence of that extra step - none. No physical evidence, no witness statements; it doesn't even fit the narrative.
The mere existence of an alternative theory of the crime is not enough to create reasonable doubt. There has to be a reason to believe the alternative theory has some veracity. At this point I don't see any reason to think Zimmerman's extra step is true.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
The law doesn't require the defendant to prove any alternative theory beyond a doubt, and certainly doesn't require them to prove a negative (that they didn't commit murder).
If a defendant's account matches the elements of self defense to the available facts, the jury will be instructed to hold it in the light of innocent until proven guilty, and to test the
prosecution's alternate theories against 'proven beyond any reasonable doubt'.
There are things that can be brought into evidence to attack the defendant's credibility, but a lot of what is being bandied about here as proof of guilt cannot be introduced as such in court.
Zimmerman's history can be used to suggest and to cast doubt, but it can't be given to the jury as an instruction that they must find Zimmerman guilty because of past behavior or personal characteristics.
Zimmerman's actions that night can be used to suggest some level of impulsive or reckless behavior, but that would be more applicable to a lesser charge, and the threshold is pretty high.
Some of the other things brought up here, such as Zimmerman being Hispanic, or 'looking like a gang memeber', or having a CCW permit and having a weapon in his possession, are not worth much at all other than to inflame the jury... which a decent defense attorney (and judge) should shut down early and often.
Inconsistencies in what the *media* reported between police reports, and video footages, and witness statements again, cannot be instructed to the jury as evidence of guilt.
Things like voice analysis could be fairly important at contradicting Zimmerman's narrative...
if the judge finds that they are widely accepted by the scientific community, and admits them in the first place.
Absent that or some other unimpeachable evidence, Zimmerman has every right to
assert self defense purely on the critical element of 'I was in fear for my life'.
The prosecution is going to have to prove to the jury that no matter what happened earlier, he
was not thinking those thoughts when he pulled the trigger.
Obstacles exist for both sides.
. Yep, the very moment I kept reading that in the media I was like "are you kidding me". It's clearly a conclusion she came to after finding out what happened.
