In-court identification may be permitted notwithstanding an unduly suggestive pretrial identification if the witness's in-court identification is supported by a source independent of the pretrial identification.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Only with the witness's consent
• D. Only if the defense agrees

Answer: (A)

The concept tested is that an in-court eyewitness identification can be admitted even if the pretrial identification was unduly suggestive, as long as the in-court identification is supported by an independent source.

If the witness’s in-court identification rests on something independent of the tainted pretrial procedure—such as the witness’s own memory of the crime or material observations that are not tied to the lineup—then due process concerns are not triggered. This independent source doctrine means the court can rely on the in-court identification because its reliability comes from a source separate from the flawed pretrial identification. The pretrial taint does not automatically render the in-court ID inadmissible when there is clear independent support for the in-court identification. Conversely, without an independent source, the in-court identification may be excluded for unduly suggestive pretrial identification.

So the statement is true: an in-court identification may be permitted notwithstanding an unduly suggestive pretrial identification if the in-court identification has an independent source.