...you probably can safely bet that almost every member of the jury had been somewhat prejudiced against him before they ever sat in the courtroom. I think he was almost immediately crucified by his superiors, other police officers, parents of victims, the public in general and the media (especially by them) as having essentially cowered & turned his back on the students being shot in the Parkland School shooting. As it turned out, it seems that many witnesses of those terrible events that day agreed with school resource officer Scot Peterson in as much as their testimony supported his claims that he was unable to determine from where the shots were coming and thus the reason he did not run toward the source of those shots. More at the source.
Of course, a prosecutor, maybe or maybe not lying through his pie hole, allegedly (I read that somewhere but cannot find it again) told the jurors that police officers are trained to locate from where gunshots originate. In, in sum & substance, he was implying (it seems) that the testimony of a few to several witnesses - who all thought the gunshot sounds were coming from different places than from where they actually came - was to be disregarded because they did not have that special training. Well, if it is true the prosecutor said that: I'd like to know which department(s) he is talking about. Maybe that is SWAT level training but in my 32 years in law enforcement, with 16 years of collateral duties as a firearms instructor, I never heard of anything as preposterous as a law enforcement officer, in general, being trained to determine from where gun shots are coming in such a situation where the acoustics obviously were quite different depending on the location of each person who heard those shots.
The thing about a prosecutors opening & closing statements though is that they are not evidence nor are they given under oath. Many times though, jurors will be swayed by those arguments acting as if they are evidence. In this case though, it seems there were enough witnesses who also were confused as to where those shots came from to help exonerate Mr. Peterson. So - no jail time, he continues to receive his pension and he has been found not guilty of all criminal charges and there were several of them. Of course, he probably has huge attorneys' bills to pay off unless he was covered due to his employment. He also may face civil litigation (again unless covered by his employment and many law enforcement jobs do cover officers acting within the scope of their duties as it appears he did so now that he was found not guilty). If he is sued civilly, it will be another thing altogether than was his criminal prosecution. Many parents of victims seem to essentially want his blood.
Now don't get me wrong; while he was found not guilty criminally, it does not mean that he did everything right and nothing wrong. I think he could have and should have done more - first of all by entering the school - but that's merely my personal opinion. Who knows, had he done so he may have saved lives, then again - maybe not. Whatever, he has to live with what he did or did not do for the rest of his life.
All the best,