argument is to require the Government to choose just one Alabama statute on which to rest a charge of attempted enticement under § 2422(b). But had the Government followed Defendant’s apparent lead and in the indictment listed only the Alabama statute prohibiting sexual intercourse, for example, one can reasonably predict that at trial Defendant would have tried to whipsaw the Government by arguing that the jury should acquit because it could not be sure that Defendant intended to entice the minor girl to engage in sexual intercourse, as opposed to a different unlawful sexual act not set out in the indictment. Schad, supra, noted that just as the jury does not have to unanimously agree on a single means of committing an offense, the indictment is likewise not required Crim. App. 1983) (<HOLDING>). JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the
holding that that the trial court erred when it determined that firstdegree sexual offense was an aggravated offense holding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on seconddegree sexual abuse which is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree rape holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree sodomy holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder holding that fetus was not a human being for purposes of attempted firstdegree intentional homicide and firstdegree reckless injury statutes