It has no legal relevance. It wasn't known by Campos and Ramos at the time of the crime, nor does it bear upon his credibility. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, uncharged prior bad acts are admissible only if they relate to truthfulness. Drug dealing isn't considered one of those (since you could conceivably be an "honest" drug dealer. Yeah, I know.)
Even if it weren't inadmissible under that Rule, it would still be inadmissible as unduly prejudicial under F.R.E. 403. "He's an illegal drug dealer, so he should have been shot"? That defense just won't fly in any respectable courtroom.
And so should the jury.
Jude, the immunity deal given to the smuggler is unprecedented in American jurisprudence. Sutton had no business granting the perp immunity for drug smuggling in exchange for his perjured testimony that he did not have a weapon with him when he was smuggling millions of dollars worth of marijuana across the border.
If this guy had a complaint about being shot, he should have volunteered to testify against the officers who shot him. He refused to testify without a grant of immunity for his own crimes. That is unprecedented. And to top it off, he was smuggling drugs while under the grant of immunity.
Sutton had an axe to grind and an unlimited budget. Does the word Nifong mean anything to you?