When can a witness make an in-court identification despite prior unconstitutional pretrial identification?

A witness can make an in-court identification despite a prior unconstitutional pretrial identification if they have an independent source for the identification. This independent source doctrine ensures that an in-court identification is permissible as long as it is based on observations made by the witness that are independent of the prior improper pretrial identification process.

In practical terms, this means that if the witness had a clear view of the criminal act or the defendant at the time it occurred and can reliably identify them based on that observation, the in-court identification can still be valid. Factors such as the witness's opportunity to view the suspect, the degree of attention paid during the crime, the accuracy of the description provided, and the length of time between the event and the identification all contribute to establishing whether their identification can be deemed independent of the flawed procedure that occurred before.

The other options do not establish an independent basis for an in-court identification. Prior knowledge of the defendant’s legal status or whether the witness was tested in the lineup does not affect the validity of an identification based on personal observation. Consent from a defense attorney does not retroactively validate an unconstitutional identification process. Therefore, the key factor that allows for the in-court identification despite the earlier unconstitutional pretrial identification is the