“I don’t see how you can turn around and argue (a variation of) “you can’t prove my client did the shooting.” The full weight of all the corroborating evidence places Ramos, Compean, and Aldrete-Davila at the scene, and that a shooting occurred.”
And none of it proves, either that Davila was unarmed, or that Compean or Ramos hit Davila.
You might think that it (along with the full range of other corroborating evidence, including subsequent questionable behavior by Compean and Ramos, that allows the jury to infer otherwise) doesn't prove that Compean or Ramos hit Aldrete-Davila, but the jury disagrees with you. And now the 5th Circuit:
Aldrete-Davila’s own testimony, the behavior of the defendants after the shooting, and the inconsistent testimony offered by both defendants and other Border Patrol agents allowed the jury to conclude that the defendants faced no credible threat and, consequently, there was no justification for their firing upon Aldrete-Davila. Although disputed, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, supports the scenario that Aldrete-Davila fled toward the Mexican border after Compean took a swing at him with his shotgun and that, while he was in flight, the defendants without provocation fired their weapons at him several times.