Who has the authority to open the door to specific acts of misconduct?

The authority to open the door to specific acts of misconduct primarily lies with the prosecution. This concept is rooted in the legal principle that allows certain evidence, which may otherwise be inadmissible, to be introduced when the opposing party has made specific claims or introduced certain evidence that makes that misconduct relevant. The prosecution can initiate the discussion of prior bad acts, allowing them to demonstrate patterns of behavior, intent, or motive.

In a trial, if the defense opens the door by introducing character evidence or suggesting that the defendant is a law-abiding citizen, the prosecution may then highlight past misconduct to counter that claim. This is often seen in cases involving self-defense, where the defense may assert that the defendant had a clean history, prompting the prosecution to provide evidence of prior misdeeds to challenge that narrative.

Thus, the prosecution has the power to bring such acts of misconduct into play, especially when it enhances the narrative they are constructing to prove their case against the defendant.