The blog Legal Insurrection has some good legal analysis of Shellie Zimmerman’s alleged “perjury,” and while it’s clear that Shellie was evasive in her testimony, and you can even say that as a whole it was misleading, but there’s no specific false statement in there.
If this actually goes to a jury, and Shellie has a good lawyer, it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she stated anything she knew to be false. She didn’t say “we only collected $10,000” when she just looked at her $100,000 bank statement earlier that day. Nope, she said “she didn’t know” which is rather vague, and could mean she didn’t know if it was $100,000 or $101,000. No one ever asked her anything specific at the hearing.
It's even debatable as to whether the state's probable cause affidavit against Zimmerman is any less misleading than Shellie Zimmerman's evasive answers at the bail hearing.
Have you ever spent a day at the criminal courts? I have, and you don’t have to hang around there very long before you hear some testimony that sounds like complete bullshit. But there doesn’t seem to be any impetus on the part of prosecutorial agencies to go after this behavior.
The state of Florida is out to get the Zimmermans. This is obvious based on the fact that a special prosecutor, with a full-time-staff, has been tasked with this single prosecution. The state doesn’t do that unless it’s out to get someone, because there’s surely a lot more useful work they could be doing. Going after friendly witnesses and family members brings this up to a new level. If Florida really cared about perjury in general, I'm sure they would have no problem finding some obvious and easy-to-prove whoppers if they reviewed a day of transcripts from the criminal courts.