So you need to ask yourself, what emotions or facts would cause the average person to be reluctant to agree with you? Remember in this case that you’ve got an author who has done a lot of groundwork to make us understand and excuse the killing. So you have to counteract that.

One way you could do that is to use even stronger emotions against the killing. (Right to life no matter what, give examples that humanize the victim and make the jury identify with his innate struggle to live no matter what the hardship.)

Another route you could choose is an appeal to avoid emotion at all. Murder is defined as ______. The elements of the crime are _____, ______, and ______. Set forth in a precise way how each of the elements of the crime clearly happened. Remind that jury that emotion has no place in determining whether the crime has taken place. Remind the jury that if we leave justice up to whether or not we like or identify with the accused then lots more murders will take place. Each person thinks in his or her own mind that the world would be better if this or that person were killed, but that way lies anarchy. Set forth examples of how the accused was a very alert, aware, conscious person fully aware of what he was doing. There is no exception in the law for good intentions, nor should there be. Nobody appointed the accused as judge, jury and executioner for the victim.

Or you might combine the two approaches- be clinical in evaluating the crime but emotional when humanizing the victim in the jury’s mind.