I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. AFAIK a juror is free to make up his or her own mind regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, and not even the judge can ask for either the reason for the juror's decision or an explanation of how he or she arrived at that decision.
Personally, I'm a strong advocate for jury nullification in cases where the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is clearly unconstitutional. I was dismissed from a criminal trial jury a few years ago when the prosecutor asked me some pre-trial questions about jury nullification and the judge didn't like my answers. I would urge anyone called for jury duty not to vote to send anyone to prison or worse for breaking a law that you know in your own impartial mind is unconstitutional, no matter what a judge has to say about it. The Constitution isn't hard to understand unless you want it to say things it doesn't say, or vice-versa. But prosecutors and judges can twist and bend words and phases around to make them say what they think they should say instead of what they actually say.
Absolutely, I wish I had thought of some of these thoughts and arguements while being in that jury room. Should have, could have, would have...
This entire case is a complete fiasco to begin with. It’s sad, unfortunate, un-constitutional, and ridiculous! The more I think about it, the more angry I am at the “idiots” beside me, with zero clue in their brains, and the judges / prosecutors who bank on it!
One of the pre-questions to the jury was, if someone new what amendment “keep and bare arms” was. No one else answered but when it was my turn, I off handedly stated that it was the second amendment. The defense attorney turned to me and said he gives me an A for knowledge. =)~ It made me laugh and smile.
Surely at that point I was the defense attorneys pick. And I am sure at that point, I was not the prosecutors pick. (I assume) As the prosecutor was banking on no evidence to support her case. But bending and manipulating the words of the law to make her case. So that jurors were too confused on how to vote. As she realized she had zero evidence to stand upon.