If that were the end of the story, no one I can think of on FR would have a problem. I certainly would not. I will take the word of two HONEST cops over a punk drug dealer any day. However, the operative word here is HONEST. They clearly were not honest. They lied and tried to cover up what happened (whatever it was). All the hysteria about porous borders and agents under pressure and drugs and terrorists and other stuff is just extraneous fecal matter muddying the water. Had the agents been honest from the get-go, the perp would have been in jail for trafficking and the agents would have gotten off with a slap on the wrists.
Let me type this R-E-A-L S-L-0-W for you folks so you can try to follow it: THEY TRIED TO COVER IT UP, SO THEIR RELIABILITY AS WITNESSES IS SUSPECT. Therefore, the testimony of a scumbag drug dealer trumped theirs. Do I think it despicable that he was given amnesty to testify? Sure. But these two cops have no one to blame but themselves.
R-E-A-L S-L-O-W FOR YOU:
The jury didn't get to hear that the "victim" was smuggling over 700 hundred pounds of marijuana at the time, or of his prior and subsequent crimes, or of his immunity deal with prosecutors. How do you think his credibility would stack up with theirs if the jury knew the facts?
By telling their supervisors!