You notice that too....No doubt the trial went the same way.
A lot of irrelevant side issues are being injected into this case and the DA was doing it himself. Repeated mentions that Antwun was "a child" and he was "16." Does that mean that if he had legally been an adult they wouldn't have charged Ersland? References to Ersland faking his back injuries. So he wore that back brace because he knew he would be robbed and would murder a poor unarmed armed robbery accomplice? He lied about his service record. That is relevant to being targeted for armed robbery and self defense during the robbery?
He didn't do himself any favors by telling lies about those things but it looks like he has been convicted of 1st degree murder because he has some emotional issues not because of the facts of the case.