I think you need to disclaim if you are a lawyer or not because this seems to be a bit of a stretch for me.
I am clearly not a lawyer, but even if you are truly innocent, there are very good reasons to want a jury trial. If you have a good set of lawyers and you are innocent, in jury selection, it should be relatively easy to be able to find at least one of the twelve jurors that you will be able to sow reasonable doubt. That is all you need to get a hung jury at worst. I highly doubt there would be an appetite to retry the case if that happens. To me, it seems like a major risk to stake your freedom on one individual -- an individual judge may harbor unconscious biases to the defendant, and that can impact how they make a judgment. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that a judge will willingly send an innocent man to prison, but every human being has biases (even one's they don't know exist), and I would not want to stake my freedom on any one individual. I would rather stake it on needing twelve to go against me, especially if I had a good set of lawyers that were able to get some individuals into the jury that would be receptive to reasonable doubt.
I am a lawyer, though I don't do a lot of criminal work. This is a saying I've heard in the law biz several times, and while I'll concede it's a bit simplistic (and maybe a trifle cynical) I also think there's some truth to it. As I said there are a lot of exceptions and I am not giving any legal advice to TSJ. But there are reasons why Shannon might opt for a bench trial.
1. Juries are less predictable than judges. If I'm innocent (and I'm inclined to think TSJ is) then I want fewer random factors.
2. A judge has more experience with lawyers and is more likely to distinguish legitimate arguments about the law or the facts from table-pounding and grandstanding. If I'm innocent, I'm figuring it's the prosecution who is going to be doing most of the table pounding.
3. If I'm TSJ I'm not shooting for a hung jury, I want Not Guilty. I don't want the prosecution to have the option of retrying the case. I wouldn't assume that the prosecution would drop this if there's a jung jury. And with a jury there's always the risk that there's one or two jurors with an axe to grind against out-of-staters or athletes or men in general or whatever. If I'm TSJ I want this thing over with.
4. I might be more willing to trust one individual if I know his or her track record. A judge is more of a known quantity. You're more likely to know about any biases and you can get advice from other attorneys about how to present your case -- what to emphasize and what to avoid. You may even have worked with the judge before and have a bit of a rapport.
5. There's research out there showing that bench trials have a higher acquittal rate than juries.
Again, TSJ has his own legal team and if they opt for a jury they probably have good strategic reasons. I'm certainly not concluding that he must be guilty.