Considering the jury deliberated for 13 hours, I would have to assume that they actually did consider the evidence presented at this trial. Or they just wanted a free dinner.
I'm sure that the past trial played a role (i.e. someone who most likely butchered 2 people with a knife would probably not have many qualms with bringing a gun to get "his" stuff back when he felt justified in getting it), but I don't think it was the reason why he was found guilty. I would bet if you asked the jurors, he was found guilty of these crimes because he was guilty of these crimes.
But I had the same reaction as everyone else - it's about time! He's been a free man for 13 years too long, and I'm glad Nevada was able to do what California couldn't: put together a coherent prosecution. I can't blame the jury for finding him not-guilty in the murder trial. The police and prosecution messed that one up so badly that based on what was presented at the trial (remember, we saw a lot more on TV than what was allowed in court because of mess ups by the police and prosecution), there was really no way to convict him with a clear conscious.