Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): he was able to identify petitioner at trial because of the photographic array is meritless. In fact, Rodriguez testified that petitioner’s face was “burned” into his mind at the time of the incident because he was so angry about being robbed, not as petitioner contends, that he memorized petitioner’s face from the photo array. Accordingly, this argument is rejected. As already discussed, Rodriguez had an unobstructed, well-illuminated view of petitioner during the robbery that lasted for approximately 15 seconds. This view allowed Rodriguez to provide officers with a detailed, mostly accurate description of petitioner, to identify the defendant with a high degree of certainty; and the two month lag between the incident and initial confrontation is not fatal. See Wong, 40 F.3d at 1360 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Appellate Division’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a five month delay was unreasonable (B) holding that a five month delay is unreasonable (C) holding that a thirtyone month delay was sufficient to trigger the barker test (D) holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable (E) holding that a thirtyone month delay could be outweighed by other indicia of reliability
Output (English): holding that a five month delay was unreasonable