Sounds like there is one hell of a lot more to this story if a jury convicted him of anything; particularly since this isn't one of those particularly blue states.
If I were being tried for a Capital Crime and my case was so weak that I had to take the stand; you can bet I'd have a real good story too.
Usually defense attorneys who have a weak case will keep their clients OFF the stand. As a general rule, you only let innocent defendants expose themselves to cross-examination. If this man testified in his own behalf, it speaks to his innocence, not guilt, even though juries are not supposed to take it into account. And this jury apparently did not.
"If I were being tried for a Capital Crime and my case was so weak that I had to take the stand; you can bet I'd have a real good story too."
What do you mean by this? Just because the guy decided to testify doesn't mean he knew he was shooting a cop. How does it make his case weak that he decided to testify? He had a clean record so there were no prior convictions to be introduced to impeach his testimony. Maybe he really felt the need to stand up and defend himself. I probably would too. Who else could explain his actions? His two year old daughter? Somebody has to explain that he didn't know these were law enforcement officers kicking his door down. Wouldn't you want to testify if the same thing happened to you? Whether a defendant in a criminal case testifies or does not testify doesn't make him any more or less innocent or guilty. You have a right to testify. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it isn't.