at 195-99, 93 S.Ct. 375 (implying that one-man “showup,” in which the police walked the defendant by the victim, may have been suggestive); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S, 98, 107-09, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 63 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977) (noting state’s concession that “display of a single photograph” of the defendant was suggestive). The Court has, however, suggested that, in some circumstances, the rule may extend beyond one-man showups or the use of single photos. See Simmons, 390 U.S. at 383, 88 S.Ct. 967 (noting that the danger of misidentification is also increased where witnesses are shown “the pictures of several persons among which the photograph of a single such individual recurs or is in some, way emphasized”); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The facts of the present case are far removed
holding due process requires suppression of testimony regarding pretrial identification when procedure employed is impermissibly suggestive holding that identification testimony given at a pretrial lineup without counsel is per se inadmissible and that the state is not entitled to an opportunity to show that the testimony had an independent source holding that series of identification procedures including a threeperson lineup where the defendant stood out due to his height and leather jacket a subsequent onetoone confrontation between the witness and the defendant and a third lineup was impermissibly suggestive 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 that to protect defendants sixth amendment rights a court must determine whether witness identification testimony was tainted by impermissibly suggestive procedures