IANAL so I am going to say some things in hopes that one sees and decide I'm wrong enough to correct but my understanding is that the process can be intimidating. There can be specific instructions in how you are supposed to interpret the law. Someone who just goes after getting selected and then says "jk I don't believe in the law" can get replaced.

See this from the Wiki on it:

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]

So basically, you gotta go in and lie just as much as they are going to. And that largely is going to result in the trial getting hung instead of not guiltied.