What is the current state of the law on eyewitness identification?

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, holding that "the vagaries of eyewitness identification are well known; the annals of Criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification" (supra at page 228, 87 S.Ct. at page 1933) and enunciating a rule in conjunction with Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, prohibiting an in-court identification following an uncounselled lineup except where the prosecution could demonstrate that it was not tainted by unconstitutional suggestiveness; and

Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, recognizing that the conduct of a confrontation may be "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification" (supra, p. 301-302, 87 S.Ct. p. 1972) as to deny due process of law, but permitting introduction of evidence thereof along with in-court identification where the unusual necessity for the procedure outweighed the danger of suggestive confrontation. (Black defendant handcuffed by seven white law enforcement officers brought to hospital room of only witness to a murder where police reasonably believed the witness might die before less suggestive confrontation could be arranged).