Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the robbery, via a police squad car, and was shown to Haley standing in the same place where the robber stood. Show-up procedures have been widely condemned because of their potential to render unreliable, mistaken identifications. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972-73, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967) (“The practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification, and not as part of a lineup, has been widely condemned.”). A show-up is inherently suggestive because the witness is likely to be influenced by the fact that the police appear to believe the person brought in is guilty, since presumably the police would not bring in someone that they did not suspect had committed the crime. See United States v. Watson, 587 F.2d 365, 367 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1132, 99 S.Ct. 1055, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it (B) recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants (C) recognizing inherent suggestiveness of showups (D) recognizing courts inherent power to issue subpoenas (E) recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
Output (English): recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it