I think that because the right to a jury trial is held so sacred in this country, nothing will happen to Juror 17 even if the powers that be find her behavior to be questionable. If she has not committed any crime, this will all just blow over. Even perjury, which would be difficult to prove, will not qualify for anything happening to her.
It's too touchy a subject--jury duty. People do not want to serve for the most part yet without a good reason to be excluded, jury duty is not something one can just opt out of. If it is an inconvenience at best, it can be an intrusion of major proportions when one is called to serve in a lengthy, high-profile trial.
If jurors are prosecuted for misdeeds of a non-criminal nature, jury duty will be seen with even more loathing than it already incites in many citizens. That's one reason why I do not expect to see any charges happen against either Juror 17 or the foreman of the first jury in this case. Both apparently had an agenda and both at the very least lied by omission in order to carry out their agenda.
The threat of prosecution for perjury that could rise from taking action against the two jurors involved in this case might serve to send a well-needed message to future jurors, but I think in a high-profile case there has to be more restraint exercised as any action taken would be viewed as prejudice or bias on the part of the state. In such cases, charging a juror with wrongdoing may not be worth risking the tongue-wagging that would ensue. At best, we may have to be satisfied with some type of overhaul of the jury selection process such as potential jurors being screened more carefully before final selection to sit on a jury.
IMO.