Here's Why a Jury Won't Convict Zimmerman Prosecution couldn't prove it wasn't self-defense: Dan Abrams By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff Posted Jul 8, 2013 1:08 PM CDT 219 comments Comments George Zimmerman, right, is greeted by defense counsel Don West at the start of his trial in Seminole Circuit Court, in Sanford, Fla., Monday, July 8, 2013. (AP Photo/Orlando Sentinel, Joe Burbank, Pool) (Newser) – Before George Zimmerman went to trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, Dan Abrams tended to believe he would be found guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder. Now that the prosecution has rested its case, however, Abrams doesn't see how the jury can find him guilty of either. The prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not shoot in self-defense, out of fear that he himself would be killed or hurt by Trayvon. The prosecution failed in that objective, Abrams writes for ABC News. Even if the jury is suspicious of Zimmerman's own account, it doesn't matter. Nothing that the prosecution proved (for example, that Zimmerman was an overzealous neighborhood patroller; that his injuries were minor) means he wasn't acting in self-defense when he shot. Even if Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, he still could have been defending himself at the moment the gun went off. And then, of course, there's "the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another." Click for Abrams' full column.