I suspect there won’t be outright jury nullification with this shooting suspect, because that’s unlikely in general

But I think, as long as he maintains his innocence and provides at least some plausible non-incriminating explanation for any evidence they try to show– there will be jury nullification’s weaker but still pretty effective normie cousin

i.e.

the jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because that is what they are supposed to do when they don’t feel there is enough evidence to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt– AND (crucially) they will not be swayed into imagining that the evidence is better than it is– because the crime is not one that upsets them enough to compromise their objective thinking in that way.

when a crime is so awful that the jury’s brains just glitch out and go like, “anyone who’s even SUSPECTED of this crime should go instantly to hell. Guilty guilty guilty, not even gonna look at the evidence”– I think that’s like, the opposite of jury nullification.

Going into it pretty much neutral would be the midpoint between the two

And this case is …. definitely closer to the jury nullification end of the spectrum, I think