I believe this is the only time that the Supreme Court has ruled on jury nullification. It is legal.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=156&page=51
Judges can only turn guilty verdicts into not guilty verdicts, not the other way around.
I should have been more clear. A basic right of a juror is not to be held liable for a guilty or not guilty vote. Their motives can be questioned but they cannot be held liable, and are thus free to vote however they wish for whatever reason.
Sure. As I noted above, as a practical matter there is no way for the courts to prevent jury nullification. That doesn’t mean jurors are supposed to do it.
What about William Penn then?
A Wonder Woman outfit and the lasso of truth 
Court’s Bailiff released a statement today about the sequestration:
[QUOTE=Local Paper]
During their time away from court, jurors will be sequestered on one floor in an area motel in a separate wing, with two bailiffs assigned to be with them at all times, chief bailiffs XX said. Among Judge’s decisions—no television, no phones, no computers, no electronic devices and no conjugal visits while the jury is sequestered. Bailiff said he has looked into meals at a variety of restaurants, and Judge decided jurors will be allowed one alcoholic drink with dinner. Arrangements will be made to accommodate interest in working out, swimming and for worship. Family members of jurors will be allowed a 90-minute visit on Sundays in a meeting room where 16 tables will be set up and bailiffs present, Bailiff said.
[/QUOTE]
Really, this seems like a punishment for the jurors. No TV, no phone, no sex and no freedom for four weeks? Only ninety minutes a week with their family, in an open public room? How is this okay?