( CNN ) -- If trials were predictable , they would n't happen . You can root for a jury to see a case your way and disagree with its ultimate verdict , but you can not criticize the jury system for being unpredictable . In that sense , a Florida jury 's recent verdicts -- and nonverdicts -- against Michael Dunn demonstrate a fundamental truth about trials . They are not only unpredictable ; they are designed that way . The case against Dunn stemmed from an incident on November 23 , 2012 . Dunn , a 47-year-old white man , arrived at a gas station in Jacksonville , Florida , and parked next to an SUV that contained Davis and other black teenagers . When Dunn complained about loud music coming from the SUV , words were exchanged and Dunn ultimately fired a gun that killed Davis . Dunn said he saw a gun barrel pointing out of the SUV , but the prosecution said there was no gun . Dunn was found guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree murder as to the other occupants of the car , but the jury was not able to reach a verdict on the first-degree murder charge in the death of Jordan Davis . In the eyes of critics , this case was a `` sure thing '' for the prosecution , and anything less than guilty verdicts across the board is now considered by them to be a miscarriage of justice . Guilty verdicts were expected . That sentiment belies a fundamental misunderstanding about the criminal justice system : With juries , there is no such thing as a `` sure thing . '' No one can accurately predict how each juror might perceive the evidence , argue a case in deliberations or be persuaded by his or her fellow jurors . Jurors can and do bring their own life experiences to the jury room , and no two jurors are the same . Yet anyone who has waited for a jury 's verdict has engaged in the same helpless jury astrology because there is simply no hard science to predict their behavior . The best example is the rabid divination of the meaning of juror questions : those inscrutable , handwritten missives intermittently sent out to the judge and read to the lawyers in chambers . Tonyaa Weathersbee : An empty verdict , a hollow victory . This system is about as sophisticated as note-passing in grade-school algebra , but just a few lines from an innocuous jury inquiry will leave seasoned attorneys pondering the hidden meaning and the potential direction of the deliberations . The bottom line is this : Reading these tea leaves is an exercise in futility . There 's no way to predict a verdict with certainty . To many observers , including me , this was a strong prosecution case , but not a sure thing . In fact , it 's generally only the close-call cases that go to a jury . The most obvious cases of guilt or nonguilt should result in plea agreements or voluntary withdrawals by the prosecution . Simply look at the statistics . The vast majority of all cases , criminal and civil , are resolved before trial . Verdicts are simply too risky for either side , especially to put up a case that they believe is a loser . A jury trial means each side believes their theory of the case is strong enough to roll the dice in this riskiest game of all . Whether you agree with the jury 's verdict or not , these verdicts give us some insight into the jury 's thought process . The jury convicted on attempted second-degree murder for shots fired at the other passengers in the SUV with Davis . It makes sense . By Dunn 's own concessions , he intentionally shot at a vehicle speeding away from him . Even if Dunn 's testimony were completely believed , at best only Davis was the aggressor , so Dunn had a minimal self-defense claim against the other occupants . But , the verdict on attempted second-degree murder may have put a figurative `` cap '' on Dunn 's level of intent . In other words , the jury may have agreed that Dunn 's level of intent as to all victims was consistent -- perhaps not the specific intent to kill characteristic of a first-degree murder , but something slightly less . In the case of second-degree murder , this could be an intentional act so indifferent to human life it evinced a depraved mind . The `` depraved heart '' variety of murder is often analogized , coincidentally enough , to law students as closing your eyes and shooting into a crowd with a gun . It may be true that you did not actually intend to hit anyone , but the act was so likely to kill that your level of intent is just below that of specific , premeditated murder . That law school example used to explain the concept to students is eerily similar to the facts here . While it 's possible that the jury was hung up trying to apply the law of self-defense , it may also be that the jury simply had trouble with the definitions of homicide . It 's understandable . They are complicated for lawyers and lay persons alike . Florida 's standard jury instructions are available online . Take a look at each of the suggested instructions for the different degrees of murder and manslaughter . They , like all jury instructions , are complicated . They do not get much less complicated just because the judge reads them slowly and out loud to the jury . They involve abstract concepts and seemingly overlapping definitions of nuanced `` states of mind . '' It 's very likely that the jury was hung up on whether self-defense applied , but they also may have deadlocked over the different definitions of homicide . Despite public frustrations , this was a win for the prosecution . It secured a successful verdict on four of five counts that will , because of Florida 's minimum mandatory sentencing scheme and the defendant 's use of a firearm , send Dunn to prison for at least 60 to 75 years . That 's day-for-day : no gain time , no early release except for a win on appeal . Plus , the prosecution can retry Dunn for the killing of Davis . When a judge discharges a jury on the grounds that the jury can not reach a verdict , the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not bar a new trial of the defendant . The double jeopardy clause provides : `` [ N ] or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb in criminal ... cases . '' If the state reprosecutes the Davis killing , Dunn will certainly feel as if he 's being tried twice for the same crime . Constitutionally , however , a retrial following a deadlocked jury is permissible . Defense counsel deserves recognition as well . They hung a jury on what many observers expected to be a clear-cut murder conviction . Even without the wave of public acrimony against the defendant , this was always an uphill self-defense case . It was clear from the trial that the defense prepared this case and the client , and gave Dunn the best chance at a not-guilty verdict . Overall , a good job with bad facts for the defense . The big question now is whether we will see the state of Florida retry Dunn for the murder of Davis . On one hand , they have achieved a virtual life sentence on the other convictions , which achieves one of the philosophical goals of punishment : incapacitation and isolation of Dunn from the community . It does not achieve another goal of punishment for the Davis family : retribution . The state has indicated for now that it will retry Dunn , but if it does , one thing will remain certain : . There are no sure things in retrials , either . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Danny Cevallos .
John Cevallos : Critics of the Michael Jackson verdict miss a lot of trials . They 're always unpredictable , and it 's impossible to get inside the minds of a jury , he says . He says jury may have been unsure about meaning of various degrees of homicide . Cevallos : The jury scored a win , despite public criticism of the verdict .