Actually they have ulterior motives in my opinion.
Case Anthony trial was televised but the jury was sequestered. The televised trial and commentary wasn't defense friendly mainly all the media and the public believing that Casey Anthony was a murderer. The defense expects the same thing to happen for Murray. For example I posted some transcripts from Nancy Grace - even though she still believes that Michael to be *questionable* in regards to molestation accusations, she also calls Murray a murderer. So I think the defense is expecting a similar trend towards Murray - even though media might not be MJ friendly, they will still tend to blame Murray for his death.
The interesting thing about Casey Anthony trial is that even though all the media and public believed her to be a killer, the jury - which was sequestered- found her not guilty. Now they are trying to achieve the same here. They think if they lock the jury and they don't see the public and media hate towards Murray they will be more likely to come up with a not guilty verdict.
Now I also followed Casey Anthony trial quite closely and there have been some evaluations in regards to the outcome. One was that she was too highly charged (capital murder) and the jurors were unwilling to give her such high sentence - if lower charges were presented as alternative would be better. We don't have this issue with the Murray trial. The charge is the lowest possible charge.
Second argument was that the sequestered jurors forming a common mindset and friendships. It's kinda like this: when you sequester jury they have no access to their families and friends and they only have contact with other jurors, they became friendly with each other. So they don't want to disappoint their jury friends. An opinion leader can be present and that person can shape the opinions of the other people as they want to be "friendly". For example research has shown that if a person has an alternative belief and has access to his/her families for support they can stand their ground : such as if a jury believes a person to be guilty while the others don't and can talk with their families and get support like "do what's right, fight for what you believe" etc they can keep voting guilty for a long time despite the other jurors position. On the other hand research shows that if the jury are sequestered they can't stay their ground and can change opinions /or persuaded otherwise by the group mindset.
I don't know if I was able to express it properly.
