It recounts an event in the progress of the case, namely the dismissal of a juror for not being impartial (saying he was “partial” sounds a little peculiar to me, as if he were only half there), recaps the main features of the case, and concludes with a note on what is to happen next.
Nothing about it seems striking to me. Without an angle of focus or a question, the only “assessment” I have is that it seems to cover the salient points briefly and reasonably objectively. I don’t really think anything about it. It’s not the first I’ve heard of the case, so I’m not reacting with horror to the news of the murders.
As far as I know, a news story doesn’t have to stand up to legal scrutiny unless there’s an issue of libel.