What about Trayvon's right to stand his ground? Finally, CNN asks the right question.

[ctaylors6]

224. The judge instructs

the jury on the law that applies. The jurors are supposed to decide issues of fact, NOT issues of law. But the instructions are based on the law - statutory as well as case law - so the juries are indirectly relying on case law. The jury must apply the facts it decides to the law as stated in the jury instructions when the jury is reaching its verdict. In other words, the jury does not have to figure out any law - it's provided to them - but they definitely are using the applicable laws when they reach their verdict.

As far as inferring anything from lack of dismissal here, I cannot imagine there's a judge who would grant a judgment of acquittal for the defendant at this point in trial even if the facts seemed very much in favor of the defendant. The state generally cannot appeal an acquittal by jury, but it can usually (unless FL is wonky) appeal a judgment of acquittal by the judge made before or after the jury reaches a verdict. If the judge really thought she should grant such a judgment, she'd wait until after the jury verdict. So I'd read nothing into the judge not dismissing at this point.