What evidence does the prosecution have to support its claim that there were only three men in the showup?

It is true that there were three, and only three, men in the showup, that they were in handcuffs, and that the witnesses' testimony regarding what the officers told them before the showups sometimes indicated that the officers made suggestive statements. It is also true that on cross-examination, the three defense attorneys tended to ask leading questions such as "did the police say that they had some guys they thought that might have done it, and you were being taken to see if you could make an identification?" When asked these leading questions, the witnesses, perhaps because they were unaware of the implications of suggestiveness in the questions, invariably answered, "Yes." The record shows that all of the witnesses who viewed the showup were given the standard police admonition stating that the persons they were about to view might or might not be the perpetrators. And some of the witnesses, when asked to clarify what the officers told them before the viewing, recited neutral statements made by the officers. The identification procedure took place within an hour after the robbery when the recollections of the eyewitnesses were fresh. (People v. Martinez (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1219.) During the field identification procedure, the witnesses were taken to the detention site individually, thus they did not influence each other. The suspects' clothing was not suggestive since, during the robbery, the men were wearing sweatshirts with hoods but they were not wearing the hoodies during the showup. The much-noted red

Page 31