I think it’s a difficult thing to balance. Certainly there are cases in which the person clearly committed a crime, but to what extent is not so clear, and it’s make sense for the jury to be allowed to determine such. It’s far less reasonable for it to be an all or nothing scenario. On the other hand, there must be a line where it’s not just the classic, throw the book and hope something sticks.
And it’s not as if there’s a clear fixed line that distinguishes this.
With that said, and I’m not sure of all the specifics in the case and what happened and was discussed and agreed upon before trial, but it seems odd if they are allowed to add lesser included charges at this point. The defendant is entitled to be able to present a defense and evidence to refute specific elements of the crimes, as an example. How can they do that if a lesser charge is thrown in upon completion of testimony? Lesser included charges doesn’t always mean it’s the same elements to prove just less of them.