Here Are All the Weapons Police Found in George Zimmerman’s Florida Residence

[spin]

119. Do know for sure that what you described is the actual truth of what happened that night? ...

Would the evidence that the prosecution presented have convinced you of Zimmerman's quilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt

***snip***

The principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' was expounded in: Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 [3]
"Juries are always told that if conviction there is to be the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must " satisfy " the jury. This is the law as laid down in the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Davies (8 C.A.R. 211) the head-note of which correctly states that where | intent is an ingredient of a crime there is no onus on the Defendant to prove that the act alleged was accidental. Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.

***snip***

United States[edit]
In the United States, juries must be instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but there is much disagreement as to whether the jury should be given a definition of "reasonable doubt."[10] In Victor v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unclear reasonable doubt instructions at issue, but stopped short of setting forth an exemplary jury instruction.[11]
The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship (1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
Japan[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

I personally feel it is quite possible that Zimmerman confronted Martin in an aggressive manner and flashed his concealed weapon to intimidate. Martin then would have been totally in his right to attempt to disarm Zimmerman as he would have had reason to fear for his health or his life.

The problem is that had I been on the jury I might have honestly felt that Zimmerman was guilty but still had reasonable doubt. Therefore to fulfill my responsibility as a juror, I would have had to vote that Zimmerman was not guilty. Voting "not guilty" is not the same as declaring a person is totally innocent.