If the foreman did that, the verdict would be tossed out. This is why jury nullification happens under the radar. That's the only way it can happen. And when it happens like that, it can't be proven.
The legislative branch generates laws
The Executive branch determines how those laws will be enforced. and
The Judicial branch overturns those laws if they violate the constitution
A juror is a citizen drafted into the Judicial branch. As such he or she has a deep underlying duty to uphold the Constitution as well as decide the facts of a case.
If you think that the idea of nine appointed judges being able to thwart the will of the majority is bad, think about the idea of twelve randomly selected citizens being able to do the exact same thing.
I've never even heard of a jury being selected randomly. Instead both sides devote a tremendous amount of effort into insuring that the jurors are anything but random, they are carefully selected by each side to be malleable in that side's hands. Indeed there are a number of jury selection consultants whose entire reason for existing is to skew the jury towards a desired verdict, before a single scintilla of facts or law is ever presented.
Maybe it's time we selected jurors based on the ability to reason, not the ability to be led around.
Once a jury says "Not Guilty", the defendant is acquitted. Period, end of story.
Unless something very bizarre happens (e.g. it's shown that someone kidnapped the foreman and replaced him with an impostor who read the verdict) an acquittal by jury is absolutely non-appealable in criminal cases.
If you think that the idea of nine appointed judges being able to thwart the will of the majority is bad, think about the idea of twelve randomly selected citizens being able to do the exact same thing.>>>>>>>>>
I understand the point but I would rather trust twelve randomly selected citizens, and no jury is ever truly "randomly" selected, than to trust nine appointed judges if five of them have been appointed by someone who selected the judges for their known inclination to legislate from the bench rather than following the constitution. Some of the scotus decisions are frightening and I hope that recent appointments by President Bush will change the trend.