reasonable doubt standard and reduces the risk of an unwarranted conviction. Indeed, it appears to this Court that the First Circuit has implicitly recognized a due process right to a lesser included offense instruction in this very case. In remanding to this Court, Nadworny v. Fair, 872 F.2d 1093 (1st Cir.1989), the First Circuit stated that: the essence of the [lesser included offense] claim — that reasonable doubt exists as to guilt on the crime charged — is a matter of fundamental due process, see In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072 [25 L.Ed.2d 368] (1970); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 697-98, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1888-89 [44 L.Ed.2d 508] (1975), and therefore cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. Id. at 1102-03. See Look v. Amaral, 725 F.2d 4 (1st Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, circuits other than the First
holding that due process does not require a lesser included offense instruction of manslaughter where not requested holding that beck requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given when the evidence warrants such an instruction as a matter of due process in a capital case holding that the defendant who was charged with felony murder was not entitled to a lesser included instruction on manslaughter because manslaughter is neither a lesser included offense nor an inferior degree crime with respect to felony murder holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense holding that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of manslaughter