No.
Nor are we talking about a coerced verdict, as you well know if you've read more about the trial of William Penn than the Wikipedia entry. The judge didn't just threaten the jury with confinement (juries were routinely confined in those days until they reached a verdict). He threatened the jurors with contempt, arrest, and fines if they refused to return a verdict of guilty. In that he erred, as the Court of Common Pleas held, because there is no such thing as a directed verdict of guilty in a criminal case.
We're talking about an extension of the somewhat murky principle of "jury nullification" to include a verdict against overwhelming evidence because the individual juror happens to think a law is wrong.
And ninety-nine times out of a hundred, what "wrong" means is not that the law is fundamentally unjust, or even that it had unintended consequences, but that the juror doesn't agree with the law or (more probably) does NOT happen to like or DOES happen to like a party.
I've tried cases since I was admitted to the bar in 1980, and in every case I've been involved in that had a juror that refused to deliberate, it was not because of some high principle but because of personal animosity. Some of them lied on voir dire to hide their personal animosity. But several of them used "jury nullification" as an excuse. Several new trials were granted. Several cases settled on motion for new trial when the jury misconduct was revealed.
That is why the jurors take an oath to show no fear nor favor, and they are charged not to render a verdict out of sympathy to one side or the other.
There are other methods to combat unjust laws. Ignoring the judge's charge and violating one's oath as a juror is not the way to do it. That way lies chaos, because chaos has resulted every time it's been tried.
People have been convicted over and over again for mere possession of an unloaded firearm in certain places in the US. The evidence that they merely possessed the unloaded firearm in their home was absolutely overwhelming.
But if I returned a not guilty verdict because "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," then am I upholding or violating my juror oath?
We're talking about the juror's veto power here, which you recognize when you state the fact that there is no such thing as a directed verdict of guilty in a criminal trial.
But you're talking about juror misconduct where the juror lied in voir dire and lied about jury nullification. How is that germane?
And I'm curious: about how many cases does your 99/100 estimate constitute in these last thirty years since your bar exam, would you reckon?