My hairstyle has nothing to do with whether I am guilty of the crime with which I am charged. Since the decision of my guilt is being made according to something other than the law and the evidence, I fail to see how I've received due process. In fact, if a juror were to admit that he or she convicted someone based on their appearance, I'm quite certain that the conviction would be reversed, just as the coin toss conviction was set aside.
Your argument seems to be that my appearance, or the appearance of our fictional defendant, could color the jury's view of the evidence. I don't disagree with that as a matter of fact. What I'm saying, though, is that if your juror says "I don't care whether he's guilty or not, I hate people that wear pompadours and, thus, I will vote to convict him." I contend that is a gross violation of due process.
Jurors are not computers that weigh facts and spit out results. I agree that jurors will consider factors other than the evidence. But where I disagree is that if factors other than the evidence color their verdict, it's a due process violation.
What a juror says afterward about how they decided — even when under oath — is only a recollection. At the time they made a judgment it is most likely they considered other factors. Humans are humans.
Jury nullification is about finding people not guilty of crimes they committed. It's called nullification because it effectively nullifies the law the person is technically guilty of breaking. Jury nullification by definition does not result in a conviction for appearance or any other reason.