I am not saying one way or the other. I am trying to be objective. We have no idea who that person was, or what their background and level of knowledge of the law is. All I am saying is that it appeared to be a pure jury nullification play.
On the other hand, I am quite amazed that whoever it was, that they were able to keep their wits about them to hold out for as long as they did, and keep everyone in the room completely in the dark. You would think that most people would crack and show some suggestion of who is voting against under the pressure of such a case.