## Facts

- Foster was prosecuted in California for armed robbery of a Western Union office; the key witness was Joseph David, the office’s late-night manager.
- Police arranged a first lineup with three men; Foster was nearly six feet tall and wore a leather jacket similar to the robber’s, while the other two men were much shorter.
- After the first lineup, David said Foster resembled the robber but could not make a positive identification.
- At David’s request, police arranged a one-on-one confrontation in which Foster was brought into an office alone and seated across from David; David remained uncertain.
- About a week later, police arranged a second lineup with Foster and four different men; Foster was the only person repeated from the first lineup.
- After the second lineup, David positively identified Foster and later made an in-court identification at trial.
- Foster was convicted; the state appellate court affirmed and the state supreme court denied review.

## Issues

1. Whether the identification procedures (two lineups and an intervening one-on-one confrontation) were so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that they violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. If a due process violation occurred, whether admission of the identification evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed Foster’s conviction and remanded.
- The Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification procedures were so suggestive that they undermined the reliability of the eyewitness identification and denied due process.
- The Court directed the California courts to decide in the first instance whether the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Due process prohibits police identification procedures that are so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that they deny a fair trial.
- Courts assess suggestiveness and reliability under the totality of the circumstances, including lineup composition, distinctive characteristics that single out a suspect, one-on-one confrontations, and repeated exposure of the same suspect.
- A procedure may violate due process where police actions effectively steer the witness toward a particular suspect, making the identification practically inevitable.
- When a due process violation is found, the conviction may still stand only if the prosecution shows the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Court found that the combined use of a lineup in which Foster stood out, a one-on-one confrontation after the witness could not identify him, and a later lineup repeating Foster as the only familiar face created an intolerable risk of mistaken identification, requiring reversal and remand for harmless-error review.


Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969)