That might happen but is very unlikely. Jury selection is done by both sides so it's very unlikely you'd get a jury united in deciding not to convict him.

However the Supreme Court ruled that jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It is very possible that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict if 1 or more jurors refuse to convict. If this happens it would be a mistrial, and the case would be retired with a new jury. In theory this could keep happening until either a unanimous verdict is reached by a jury or a judge decides that this should not be retried as its been tried multiple times without outcome.

Another key element will be his defense which could lead to him getting a not guilty verdict. The only real defense as a mitigation would be insanity. Otherwise it seems unlikely (albeit possible) that it's the wrong man.

The most likely scenario is a jury unanimously convicts him in my opinion. However people may feel about the case, a jury has to make a decision on whether the facts show he committed a crime - it seems pretty clear there is enough evidence to make a decision and it's unlikely other factors will come in to play in a jury room.