I'm not speaking about the law. I'm a law student. I've worked for prosecutors. I'm speaking toward 1) plea bargaining and 2) juries, who, fun fact, rarely apply the law correctly.

It's not like she is going to confess to being aware that the two men would go rob the man.

The, for lack of a better word, "bargaining" that juries do behind the scenes often results in juries presenting nonsensical results where the jury finds someone guilty of all the elements of various offenses but inexplicably will find them guilty of lesser includeds because it feels right.

For instance, I recall a case where a jury found a defendant guilty of one count of oral rape but not the count of anal rape despite the fact that (1) the anal rape was better substantiated by medical testimony and (2) the only witness to the rapes, i.e. the victim, testified to both. So they believed she had been orally raped on her word alone, but they would not believe that anal rape occurred based on her word plus medical corroboration. In other words -- juries aren't logical.