Ayoob has written about at least one case. When I read his article about it, what I concluded was that the prosecutor made a poor argument based on ignorance and stereotypes seeking a conviction instead of justice, and that the defense attorney did not know enough either to fight that off with motions and evidence. If I recall correctly, that case was ... 30 - 40 years ago, and the level of knowledge among all was primitive. Places like Force Science Institute did not exist, and little if any good quality research (practical, psychomotor, and legal) was being done, enabling folklore to be prominent.
When I was in law school, use of force was one to two hours of the basic criminal law class and taught at a very low level. Any attorney interested in use of force is going to have to invest hundreds of hours in real education after law school. This is true of prosecutors, defense attorneys and police legal advisors (I have served in two of those roles), and likely civil practitioners. We had a hypothetical presented in class that was pretty easy (for me) because I was already doing stuff of that nature by personal interest, and when I answered it and explained the answer, the professor looked at me like a chicken watching card tricks.
