The cop wasn’t pursuing him for shooting a man in the face. He was pursuing him for hitting a man in the face with a gun.
The cop was pursuing someone; it may not have been him.
He was being pursued for shooting him in the face not hitting him with the gun. How else would the prosecutor be able to have the ballistics expert testify that the bullet casing from the pool party shooting matched the bullet casing at the shooting of the police officer. Why would anyone have a motive to shoot this police officer other than the perpetrator he was hotly pursuing.
Physical evidence is helpful in gaining a conviction but a jury can always use deductive logic as to motive and opportunity to reach a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Anyone trying to decide this case from media reports interposed by the defendant’s supporters is on a fool’s mission.The jury made the decision and 4 separate appeals courts upheld it.