Can you imagine the howls if some jurors decided to let a terrorist walk because they disagreed with Bush's foreign policy? That's the slope we're on, folks.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the outrage on this case. These two agents may be the most incompetent pair of law enforcement officers in history (and if they're as bad as some of these stories have made them out to be, I believe their hiring was bordering on a negligent act itself). But even if they were - so what? What good has this case accomplished?
If these two gentlemen really did that poor of a job as border agents, take their badges and discharge them. Maybe you could even argue they could be prosecuted. But to give immunity to an illegal alien drug dealer in exchange for testimony? What kind of message is that sending? We've sent the message to a parasite third world nation that we're willing to overlook crimes by their invading citizens if they're willing to perform certain acts in our legal system. Is this really any way to discourage the run on our borders? Where was the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor?
The problem was that they shot the man without knowing ANYTHING about him. For all they knew, he was a legal citizen who just got spooked when they stopped him. He could have thought that they were folks dressed like cops to try to hurt him.
The officers shot first, and asked questions later, then apparently tried to cover up what they did. I'm assuming the jury convicted them for that, and didn't let the man's legal or illegal status sway them in any way, as they should have done.