Posted: 4/12/2012 8:22:58 AM
Per the statute:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
First she has to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" the shooting was necessary.
"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree..."
Then she has to prove "depraved mind."
Without a suprise eyewitness, I don't see how she possibly gets a conviction.
Note, there will be multiple hearings over the next month. Zimmerman is charged with a non-bondable offense. So there will be an Arthur Hearing.
At the Arthur Hearing, the State must prove the case to the judge by a standard known as "proof evident, presumption great." The hearing, which is like a mini-trial, the State must present its evidence to show that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great.
This will be our first chance to get insight into the evidence the state collected. Should be in the 2nd week of May...