Okay, time to bring in our legal team. ABC's Dan Abrams along with Nancy grace, the host of "Nancy grace" on HLN. How did he do? He had to testify because he's claiming self-defense and the only... See More
Okay, time to bring in our legal team. ABC's Dan Abrams along with Nancy grace, the host of "Nancy grace" on HLN. How did he do? He had to testify because he's claiming self-defense and the only testimony really can come from him. He was okay. There are real problems with some of the inconsistencies in his account. I thought that his demeanor was a little problematic. At times he almost -- Smiled. But he also sounded almost legalistic at times as if he were reciting the statute as to what self-defense would entail. So there were a number of problems, but, look, he laid out the basics for his self-defense claim. Nancy, a lot of people noticed he kind of choked up when he was talking about his dog but not about the killing. Yes, I noticed that too. He was extremely smug and he even went so far as to say, I don't know why the prosecution didn't bring on my police interrogation tapes. Well, be careful what you ask for. For you will surely get it because after the state basically forced him to take the stand by not introducing those tapes thereby his story never got in front of the jury, he had to take the stand as Dan pointed out. Of course, you always have the right to remain silent under the fifth amendment but then on rebuttal, the state brings on those police tapes to show a major, major inconsistency. Dunn said to police, that Jordan Davis, the boy, the unarmed boy got out of his car and said, this s-h-I-t is going down now and was about to shoot Michael Dunn but he never said that at any other time. Never told his fiancee who he sent in to get more wine, more booze. She comes back in the car. He never said, hey, that guy pulled a shotgun on me. He never even mentioned that he saw a gun. Piece of testimony -- The crucial question in this case, right, the legal question is, was his belief reasonable that he was in danger? For his belief to be reasonable, you have to believe that there was a gun in that car and to believe there was a gun in that car, you have to believe him. Dunn, who just testified. It is the crucial question in this case and if these jurors don't believe he had a gun -- On cross-examination he said he could have imagined the whole thing, please, he told police, yeah, I could have imagined I saw the gun and we find out he's half deaf so now he's trying to tell the jury he is in his car with the windows rolled up and he hears Jordan Davis in another car say I am going to shoot you. His best chance is for a lesser conviction. Charged with first degree murder. An aggressive charge in connection with this case. I think his lawyer would be very pleased if there's an instruction on manslaughter and gets a lower conviction on something like manslaughter. Roy black was saying something similar, Nancy. You agree? I think that it would be a huge celebration if they get a lesser included defense like manslaughter but I'm telling you this, he sat there and looked at the photos of this dead teen and never even -- his lip never even tremb trembled. When he talked about his dog he had to get his hander chief. If you take his account seriously, there is he an argument to that. His claim is that this guy is saying, I'm going to kill you, he's getting out of the car to try to kill him. That's just like me saying I'm afraid you're going to shoot me through the camera. I might believe that but that's not a grounds for self-defense. We have to get to closing arguments. To ginger with the weather. I do like Nancy's gloves, by
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.