A lot of people don’t seem to be seeing this correctly.
Probably because most think she should be found guilty.
The defense wants the one kicked off because that juror is impeding a not guilty verdict.
Why would the defense want to have the one person that would vote not guilty removed? That makes no sense to me.
I believe you have it backwards.
There is one juror holding out for a "guilty" verdict and the rest have compromised on a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict.
Of course, the defense attorney wants the holdout juror removed from the panel.