Note that the original March 2005 investigative report may have simply been reporting what the agents told the investigator. We'd have to see the detais or depose Sanchez to ask if he did interviews with all of the agents at the scene, or based his investigation on interviews with Compean and Ramos.
That's why I'm not too interested in the investigative report memos -- they are simply a reporting of what people SAID about the case.
We need to see what people testified to under oath to understand why the jurors found them guilty. And to see if there are actual facts now indisputed which were incorrectly presented (or not presented) at the trial.
Three jurors have apparently told reporters that the foreman "told them their verdicts had to be unamimous," and that they were "not allowed to be a hung jury."
Now IF this report is accurate, etc. etc. BTW, a local, highly experienced attorney tells us that scuttlebutt has it that the defense team was "out-lawyered" by the prosecution.
For example, in regard to the infamous, so-called "Subsequent Arrest" of the informant after he received immunity: it "officially" may have never happened. I.E., he was taken into custody, and released; never actually "arrested, or booked," so the prosecution felt they were technically correct in not disclosing this to the defense, and they followed up by successfully obtaining a gag order and the sealing of records.
Your tax dollars at work.