held that the prosecutor’s direct reference to the defendant’s failure to testify was not error because it was in response to the defense counsel’s argument that the government would not let the defendant testify. In the instant case, the opening statement that defense counsel made and the cross- examination of the agent, Deal, were far from “single passing” comments. The courts have recognized the door may be open by either side. See, e.g., Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36, 37-39, 121 S.Ct. 1263, 149 L.Ed.2d 178 (2001) (finding that the prosecutor’s closing argument that Shafer and his two accomplices “might come back” opened the door to show future dangerousness and required an instruction of life without parole); United States v. Chance, 306 F.3d 356, 386-87 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The defendant may not use his constitutional
holding that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request by the defense violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irre spective of the good faith of the prosecution holding that once defense counsel attempted to paint the picture of the appellant as a good law enforcement officer the prosecution was entitled to adduce some evidence to rebut that implication holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was  a convicted felon holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused  violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution holding that defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution