I'm not a lawyer..., but I would think not. With a jury, all they have to do is put doubt into one juror's mind and the jury is hung. Once that happens, both sides have some amount of interest into negotiating a plea and avoiding another trial.
As the saying goes, "In the Halls of Justice, the only justice is in the halls."
Somewhat cynically, I'll observe that the family of the deceased wants vengange while the defendants are looking for mercy.
A late friend of mine was a lawyer for many years. He practiced in a lot of areas including prosecutor, defense, probate, and was even a judge for a day.
We discussed a lot of legal issues and he frequently said that the trial is over once the jury is picked. Which is why both sides put so much effort into picking the members of a jury.
I'll leave the minutiae of the facts of the case to the Perry Mason contingent, but these cases often take funny bounces.
I was involved in a homicide case back in the mid 1990s where the defendant insisted on representing himself. He was convicted and promptly appealed his conviction on the grounds of ineffective counsel! His conviction was overturned by the MA Supreme Judicial Court.
If I were one of the defendants here, I'd try to get Jose Baez interested in taking my case. He got acquittals in two high profile cases where there was this level of media attention and everyone thought the defendant guilty.
I wonder if the legal team for the suspects will decide to try for a Bench Trial, to avoid juror feelings after all the press and hope for a judge to just try the case on facts, evidence and the law? Is that an option in that state?