Clearly we do not have access to all the evidence and how it was delivered to the jury so we can’t really discuss intelligently what could have been the reason for the one juror to stay doubtful but I am hoping more information does come out to explain it better.
I think maybe they concentrated too much on trying to claim the officer had malice (murder) instead of making a horrible mistake in judgement causing the ending of a life unjustly (manslaughter).
These cases many times try to put too much emphasis on the color of the victim and shooter attempting to push the idea the only reason the cop shot the victim was they were racists. I believe this causes confusion because the cases usually involves some kind of struggle or behavior of the victim at some point that make the “innocent Black guy” narrative hard to swallow, such as this case, why did the victim run and tussle with the cop? If he has stayed at the car and done as instructed he would be alive today.
Now do not get me wrong, I am not saying he deserved to die, I am just pointing out he contributed to the escalation of the situation from a traffic stop to a physical confrontation with a police office, always a bad idea in my opinion.
Back to my point, they try to paint the victim as an innocent but the evidence clearly shows the subject did run from police, refuse to do as instructed, and fought with the officer, that is not an innocent, at that point the subject is a violent felon. So it is pretty clear the cop did not shoot the man because he was Black, he shot him because in the “fight” with the subject he lost his composure and his capacity to reasonable judgement and he ended a life he should not have ended.
He is guilty of manslaughter, not murder, and the killing had nothing to do with the race of the victim or the cop.