Randomly, I'm not sure that would have done anything to change the outcome of the verdict. 2nd degree and manslaughter have very strict requirements, and if one isn't met, then they cannot, in good conscious, issue a guilty verdict. Malice is a hard thing to define, especially in cases where the murderer didn't know the victim.

This is being said by someone who disagrees with the verdict and thinks that the way the prosecution handled the trial was shamefully negligent, but from a legal standpoint, I can intellectually understand how they came to that conclusion based on the evidence submitted and testimony heard. =/