The jury can hardly adjudicate another crime if that crime isn't specified. And they can't do so fairly if the defendant isn't allowed to present a defense for

The jury can hardly adjudicate another crime if that crime isn't specified. And they can't do so fairly if the defendant isn't allowed to present a defense for the charges of the second crime. And they haven't adjudicated a second crime if they don't agree unanimously about what specific crime was committed. It's a mystery to me why the prosecution, which has mentioned a state crime they claim applies, didn't charge him with that crime. That would have provided due process and made the conviction far more convincing. Were they afraid they couldn't actually prove that crime?