Can a jury always convict on a lesser included charge?
<p>There is a <a href="https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/74670/looking-for-clarification-of-jury-rulings-at-the-end-of-a-few-good-men/74672?noredirect=1#comment121247_74672">question</a> on movie stack exchange regarding the Few good men movie (spoilers) regarding why some people were not found guilty of first degree murder but only of a factually fully different crime. The currently accepted answer points out that in the case in question the defendants didn't commit first degree murder due to there not being premeditation nor was the death even intentional. Thus they could not be convicted of murder one and the jury acquitted. </p>

<p>I've already heard this kind of argument before regarding for example the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/14/nation/la-na-zimmerman-legal-20130715" rel="noreferrer">Zimmerman case</a>. But looking at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense" rel="noreferrer">lesser included offenses</a> it would seem the jury is allowed to convict on those rather than just the offense charged. Actually in the case of murder it seems that the court <strong>must</strong> instruct juries that they can find for a lesser included offense. </p>

<p>So the question is sort of two fold:</p>

<p>If the jury is not instructed that they can find for a lesser included offense can they do it anyway if they understand it on their own?</p>

<p>How can there be issues with overcharging in murder trials if the jury must be instructed about the lesser included offenses?</p>

<p><strong>EDIT</strong>
 With regards to jurisdiction multiple US would be great (federal, couple state) but for choice lets say Florida.</p>

<p><strong>What the jury must do</strong></p>

<p>A j<a href="https://sfcriminallawspecialist.com/blog/do-juries-have-to-consider-lesser-included-offenses/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ury must follow the law it is given by a judge</a>. A jury cannot "go rogue" and bring back a verdict on something that has not been charged and/or that the jury has not been told to consider. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So, whether a jury has the option of convicting a defendant of a lesser included offense - a crime contained within a more serious crime - depends on the instructions the judge gives. </p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Is it up to the judge and the judge alone?</strong></p>

<p>Not necessarily. Typically, judges must issue the lesser included offense instructions to the jury if the lesser included offense is part of the charged offense if there exists significant evidence the defendant only committed that lesser crime. So, only if the evidence supports such instructions. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.groselawfirm.com/2014/03/blog/who-decides-whether-the-jurors-consider-the-lesser-included-offenses-trial-judge-or-defendant/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Further</a>, at least in some jurisdictions, a trial judge may not instruct jurors on a lesser included offense if there has been no request to do so by the defendant. There appears to be a disagreement over what, if any, power a prosecutor should have in making such a request. One side would argue that a prosecutor would want to ask for it so that a defendant who is getting off on the larger crime doesn't skate completely free on, for example, a technicality. Another side would argue that prosecutors should <em>not</em> have a say because they are in fact who control which charges are submitted to the grand jury for indictment. </p>

united-states criminal-law jury trial murder