Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): it fails because the procedures employed with respect to the photo array were not unduly suggestive. Tyni-cia Teague had seen Muller several times in the past and identified him as the truck’s driver from a six-photo array during an interview with police at a restaurant on May 13, 2012. As Defendants’ expert in the field of cognitive psychology, memory, and eyewitness identification testified at trial, the photo array contained "five additional photographs that were similar in appearance to Mr. Muller. And that’s the proper procedure for conducting an identification.” App. 2272. These procedures were not unduly suggestive, and the District Court did not err in admitting Tynicia Teague’s identification of Muller. See, e.g., United States v. Burnett, 773 F.3d 122, 133-34 (3d Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Muller also argues that he should be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the photo lineup was not unduly suggestive where the defendants photo was the only one that included his name (B) holding that a photo array in which all of the men in the array were of similar age there was no striking difference in the amount of head hair each had and the skin color of the members of the array was not strikingly different was not impermissibly suggestive (C) holding in a very similar underagesex case that a school photo of the victim taken three months after the alleged crime plainly was relevant to the defendants mistakenage defense and did not prejudice the defendant because he was free to challenge the weight of the photo evidence by arguing that it did not show the victim as she had appeared on the night in question (D) holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction (E) holding that section 33021b was overbroad because it prohibited a wide array of constitutionally protected speech and was not drawn narrowly enough to achieve only the legitimate objective of protecting children from sexual abuse
Output (English): holding that section 33021b was overbroad because it prohibited a wide array of constitutionally protected speech and was not drawn narrowly enough to achieve only the legitimate objective of protecting children from sexual abuse