While I don't particularly doubt that Timothy McVeigh was in significant measure responsible for detonating a large bomb outside the Murrah building, I do think he was railroaded. Despite repeated sustained objection, the prosecution kept on introducing testimony from people who had lost loved ones in the blast/collapse. To be sure, such testimony would be appropriate in the sentencing phase, but unless the defense is contesting the fact that people died the testimony of the decedents' loved ones has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the bombing. So what was the purpose of that testimony, if not to unjustly inflame the jury?
I agree, although I'm not sure McVeigh is the best example.
I've seen more egregious examples in the way those accused of child sex crimes are portrayed in press accounts.
That a crime is particularly horrible has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a particular individual committed that crime.