All that means is that the jury did not flip a coin. First of all the rationale that somehow using the shotgun to block or impede the charge of Davila was somehow overkill. Davila refused commands to stop with guns pointed at him. In the testimony the prosecution even suggested that he should have had his "billy club" out for use. What difference is a beaning from a club or the butt of a shotgun? The prosecution was implicitly supporting the level of control they were at the same time impugning.
Juarez lied. Juarez changed his story at least three times. Juarez was about to be fired for the lies he had given but he resigned prior to that firing. Had Juarez seen Compean firing from the top of the levee as he testified, Vasquez should have also seen Compean firing. He was immediately behind Juarez. On top of that Compean was supposed to have done a magazine exchange from the top of the levee. A magazine exchange takes time. After you have stopped firing and while you are releasing the "spent" magazine, you must reach to your belt, release the cover of the magazine holster, extract the magazine, insert the magazine into the pistol, and then resume firing. Davila testified that there was no pause in the shooting except for the last shot which was Ramos as he arrived. Davila's testimony is consistent on this point with the testimonies of Ramos and Compean. Compean was on one knee, fumbling with the magazine which he never got into his pistol in order to fire again. That makes entire sense. Compean is fat. A holster on his belt while he is on one knee would be nearly impossible to easily manipulate. Point being, not all the testimony was evidently analyzed.
The 5th Circuit found no reversible errors or evidentiary problems with the way the trial court handled the case. Ramos and Compean are down to one last bite of the apple (excerpting pardons or commutations of sentence).
I am also mildly disturbed by the way certain memes were repeated enough times that they became accepted as truth (not pointing my finger at you, specifically, but people need to understand that simply repeating the arguments of the National Border Patrol Council does not "prove" anything). For example, the claim that § 924(c) did not apply here--lots of people repeated it (journalists, radio hosts, some U.S. Congressmen), and it wasn't until I read the 5th Circuit opinion myself that I discovered that not only does it apply but that its application is settled case law in this jurisdiction. I mean, c'mon, the misinformation flying around here was tremendous.
My point? We need to treat the jury verdict the same way the 5th Circuit treats it . . . unless we were sitting in that courtroom every day ourselves.