Damn! Not even 40! So sad.

RIP, Michelle.

That’s more likely, yes. That is still dangerous though. If the makeup of the jury is generally anti-vigilante justice, then bringing them to that point may backfire.

Why this CEO dying is such a big deal but the huge amount of people that died due to his decisions isnt.

I seriously doubt that this sentiment will be part of their defense. They will not argue that the victim deserved it. That is not a legal defense for murder in the first place, and it would be based on the premise that Luigi is in fact guilty of murder. That would be a really bad way to defend their client.

They probably will establish that his treatment was unusual and harsher than typical for other defendents through documented facts. They may even bring police or prison staff to the stand to ask them about their views on the case that may establish cause for the unequal treatment (beyond happenstance). They may even extrapolate that into how that bias that led to his unequal treatment may draw into question the trustworthiness of the evidence gathered when so many authority figures have demonstrated an abnormal bias against the defendent and whether all due process and procedure was followed as legally required. Whether the police had probable cause before the arrest, whether the correct court has jurisdiction, whether the jury could have been biased against the defendent by the way the authorities framed the facts and events, etc.

But at no point will they ask about the CEO’s victims or anyone’s feelings on that matter. It just won’t be relevant or helpful in this murder trial. Morally relevant, yes. Legally, no.