Zimmerman Trial: Experts Say Reasonable Doubt Will Be Tricky
As George Zimmerman’s trial in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin continues, interest in the case remains steady — and legal experts say the prosecution has a rough road in eliminating reasonable doubt when it comes to the specifics of the events of February 26, 2012.
The Zimmerman trial has remained a hot topic both on TV, where it dominates coverage on networks like HLN, and on social media, where opinion on the case is sharply divided.
Supporters of George Zimmerman believe the case is open and shut due, in part, to the difficulty in establishing what precisely occurred before Trayvon Martin was shot dead.
Advocates for Trayvon Martin and his family believe that the evidence strongly supports a conviction, citing inconsistent accounts from Zimmerman as well as testimony from the friends and family of the slain teen suggesting that a violent attack was not in line with the way he was known to behave.
However, many legal experts seem to think that while George Zimmerman is guilty of something, the case is a hard one to try given the conflicting testimony and difficulty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with ill will or malice in the teenager’s shooting death.
Legal analyst Dan Abrams wrote of the Zimmerman trial so far:
“I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman’s account as credible… But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defense.”
Former prosecutor Elizabeth Parker said to USAToday:
“There are significant weaknesses in the state’s case — most importantly conflicting eyewitness accounts which themselves create reasonable doubt as to what happened that night.”
George Zimmerman’s supporters and detractors seemed divided today over the impact of the testimony of Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father.
