This is kinda dumb. People need to read up on jury nullification.
And for all we know, the juror was simply coupling her belief regarding the guilt of this man with what she was seeing in the bible. i.e. the bible was “confirming”, at least in her mind, what she saw in this defendant.
But still, this is dumb. The only way it should even be remotely considered would be if she said she found him guilty because she hates black people. What even destroys that is that her opinion simply matched that of the other jurors regarding guilt.
This is an argument based on a ridiculously irrelevant technicality.
How else do ethical issues like this get aired?
Remember that a “liberal” might be on your hanging jury someday.