show the convictions of approximately seventy-five percent of innocent persons involved mistaken eyewitness identification. Id. Therefore, it is important for the courts to ensure that any identification made or influenced by a defendant’s presence at the deposition does not create a situation where the procedure has the likelihood of violating a defendant’s right to due process of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In other words, courts should not permit unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures as a matter of good policy. The seating of a defendant next to his or her counsel at the deposition of an eyewitness is so clearly suggestive as to be impermissible. Cf. United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938, 942-43 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). It is a waste of judicial resources and time
holding when the defendant timely objected to an incourt identification by an eyewitness the trial judge should have directed the government to provide an outofcourt lineup or other protective procedure to avoid an impermissibly suggestive incourt identification holding an incourt identification made with the defendant sitting next to his attorney at the counsels table is so clearly suggestive as to be impermissible holding neil v biggers does not apply to a firsttime incourt identification because the judge is present and can adequately address relevant problems the jury is physically present to witness the identification rather than merely hearing testimony about it and crossexamination offers defendants an adequate safeguard or remedy against suggestive examinations holding defendant waived right to challenge incourt identification when he admitted guilt at punishment phase of trial holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant