I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.

[onenote]

61. Florida Jury Instruction

"In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."


So (i) the jury is supposed to view the question of self defense through the eyes of the defendant; (ii) the danger need not have been actual, thus it doesn't matter whether the injuries cited by the defense were substantial or insubstantial; as a matter of law, Zimmerman wasn't required to show any injury at all. And because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, all that Zimmerman needs to be acquitted based on self defense is for the jury to conclude that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. That's two "reasonables" and that gives jurors a lot of room. (Put another way, if a juror believes that there is any reasonable possibility that Zimmerman could have feared for his life during the fight with Trayvon, then that jury, if he or she follows the jury instructions, likely would vote to acquit.