With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". see also C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 27.01(5), (6) (5th ed.1996). Thus, it has been recognized that should an accused be permitted to testify to his own good character, then the prosecution could similarly ask on cross-examination about relevant prior instances of inconsistent misconduct. See C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 26.02(9) (5th ed.1996). However, even if a character witness denies on cross-examination having heard of or being aware of the inquired-about specific misconduct of the subject person, the cross-examining party still may not prove that the subject person is actually guilty of the misconduct, even to impeach the witness. Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 121, 6 So. 420 (1889); see also Abston v. State, 548 So.2d 624, 627 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). In any event, because we conclude that this

A: holding that there was no inference of scienter based on defendants knowledge of facts or failure to monitor information because plaintiffs did not specifically identified any reports or statements that existed or would have come to light in a reasonable investigation that would have demonstrated the falsity of the allegedly misleading statements
B: holding that the objective truth or falsity of reports concerning a witness were not subject to further proof because such truth or falsity was a collateral matter
C: holding that the factfinder may infer discrimination from the falsity of the employers explanation
D: recognizing that we have consistently held that a party who wishes to introduce evidence of past false reports of sexual assault bears the threshold burden of establishing the falsity of the past reports
B.