It wouldn't have been hard to find an officer in a jurisdiction where 10mm are standard issue.
Like say the FBI, who used the 10mm from about 1986-1990 before the adoption of the 40 S&W, which incidentally is one of the most popular service cartridges in the United States right now and was introduced into the market as more moderate version of the 10mm to accomodate a wider variety of shooters? I mean listen, if someone wants to make the case that the 10mm is not an excessive cartridge, then it's not hard to look at the FBI's extensive studies done during that timeframe prove the point. The 10mm is an exceptional service cartridge, and is still in use by many law enforcement agencies in the United States for this very reason.
The truth is that: 1) The defense should have been better prepared to combat this ridiculous allegation, and 2) this sort of crap shouldn't be allowed in a court of law when it has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the case in the first place. The facts are that the handgun itself was legally owned and carried, and that Fish had also completed a fair amount of formal training on defensive shooting with this weapon. A prosecutor shouldn't be allowed then to make an argument about something like this when it is immaterial to the hard facts.:barf: Tell me, how is it that the prosecutor gets to bring into question the caliber of the defendant's weapon while the defense doesn't get to introduce Mr. Kuenzli's past history of violence? It's a ridiculous double standard that reeks of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of power in the legal system.:barf: