Having followed the George Zimmerman trial, last week on my show, I said I didn't think that Zimmerman will be convicted in the murder of Florida-teen Trayvon Martin. My reasoning? It seemed like the majority of the witnesses called by the prosecution to testify were actually helping Zimmerman.

Well now it seems that a respected legal analyst also believes that Zimmerman won't be convicted. Dan Abrams is legal analyst for ABC News (and also worked in Detroit at one point) and he says he doesn't see how a jury will convict him of second degree murder or even manslaughter.

Abrams' arguments are a lot more sound than mine. He says prosecutors are at a distinct disadvantage. They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. If that isn't a bunch of legal jargon, then I don't know what is, but having watched parts of the trail, I get it.

Abrams goes into Zimmerman's account of what happened that night. He then rationally breaks down what all 38 witnesses called by the prosecution had to try and show, adding that most seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another, and that even if jurors find a part of Zimmerman's story fishy, it is not enough to convict.

Again, Abrams is a legal analyst so he can back up his arguments with legal reasoning. I am just a casual observer of the trial.

What do you think though? Have you been following the trial? Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted?