ALTHOUGH A JURY OF LAYPERSONS MAY GIVE HIGH CREDENCE TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF A DEFENDANT BY A PURPORTED EYEWITNESS, SUCH REGARD IS NOT WELL-FOUNDED. RATHER, PERSONS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE CRIME MAY BE POOR WITNESSES. THE VICTIM'S FRIGHT AND ANXIETY FREQUENTLY PREVENT HIM OR HER FROM BECOMING AN ADEQUATE, OBJECTIVE OBSERVER OF THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THIS DIFFICULTY AND ITS EFFECT ON A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS WHICH BEGAN WITH UNITED STATES V. WADE (1967). THE COURT RECOGNIZED THE DANGERS OF MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE MAJOR FACTOR WAS THE DEGREE OF SUGGESTION INHERENT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROSECTUION PRESENTS THE SUSPECT TO WITNESSES FOR PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION. THE COURT'S GUIDELINES SHOWED CONCERN FOR THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE PREINDICTMENT LINEUP IS CONSIDERED A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AND THEREFORE WARRANTS DEFENDANT'S ACCESS TO COUNSEL. SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS BY FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOUND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS WHEN THE PRE-LINEUP PROCEDURES FOCUS UNDUE ATTENTION ON THE ACCUSED, OR WHEN CLEAR DIFFERENCES EXISTED BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND THE OTHER PERSONS IN A LINEUP. RULES OF CONDUCT FOR PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION ARE SET FORTH WHICH TEND TO LESSEN SUGGESTIVENESS DURING THE CONFRONTATION WITH WITNESSES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)