And in a sense we're talking past each other. If what jurors WANT is to avoid convictions under an unjust law, the better course is for jurors to fact-find if they can, since that's their proper job.
Every lawyer with time in the courthouse knows that jurors will go with the just result if you give them something to hang their hats on. And that happens every day, it's not dramatic or earthshaking, just good trial lawyers showing jurors how to do the right thing.
"Jury nullification" is a hobby horse of very limited utility. Maybe even a unicorn.
But if you want to ride that hobby horse, be my guest. I'll stick with what I know works.
Otherwise, who are all these lawyers and reporters talking to after the verdict is received? It's SOP to debrief jurors. I was debriefed after the jury I was on reached a verdict. My dad (also a lawyer) was debriefed after HIS jury reached a verdict. A local federal judge was seated on a state court burglary trial (don't ask me what THOSE lawyers were thinking) and she was interviewed by three papers!
Occasionally you'll run across a juror who doesn't want to talk to anybody and just wants to get out of Dodge ASAP. But most of them are happy to explain their verdict, and they LOVE to tell you what you did wrong! I smile, nod, listen, and learn.
And in every case I was involved in where there was jury misconduct, we were tipped off to it by a telephone call from another juror after the verdict went in (or a juror contacting the judge through the bailiff if the trial was still under way.)
Any juror who openly advocated nullification could not hope to keep it secret.