Opinion ID: 1978811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were the lineup procedures impermissibly suggestive?

Text: In Stovall v. Denno, supra , the United States Supreme Court further held that the accused has the right to attack the conduct of the lineup as having been so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that the accused was denied due process of law. The court, however, indicated that the determination of whether an individual lineup constitutes a denial of due process must depend on the totality of circumstances surrounding it. Pursuant to this mandate, the lower Federal and State courts have in many cases considered the term unnecessarily suggestive lineup. An excellent survey and analysis of these cases can be found in a note, Pretrial Identification Procedures  Wade to Gilbert to Stovall: Lower Courts Bobble the Ball, in 55 Minn.L.Rev. 779. Minnesota cases dealing with this issue appear to adhere to the general rules set out above. See, State v. Kohuth, 287 Minn. 520, 176 N.W.2d 872 (1970); Broberg v. State, 287 Minn. 66, 176 N.W.2d 904, certiorari denied, 400 U.S. 843, 91 S. Ct. 87, 27 L.Ed.2d 79 (1970); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 315, 170 N.W.2d 543, 553 (1969); State v. McConoughey, supra . This issue in this case is close. The lineup had the approval of the postconviction court. While we do not approve of the use of only three persons in a lineup, especially where the two with defendant are police officers, the decision of the district court is affirmed under the totality of circumstances revealed by our examination of the record.