Should the woman's in-court identification be allowed as evidence? Why or why not? A young man robbed a woman in a women's restroom at the...

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that any
evidence found as a consequence of improperly obtained evidence should be excluded.
There are some exceptions, for example, evidence that was obtained independent of the
improper actions, evidence that would have been obtained no matter what, or evidence
that can be shown to be so disconnected from the improper action that it doesn't
matter.

I find it interesting that Crews' argument was only
that the in-court identification should be excluded because the fruit of the poisonous
tree doctrine seems to go back further in time, to the point at which he was made part
of a photo display.  This evidence certainly should have been
excluded.

However, there is case law which suggests that
the in-court identification is an "independent" means of identification, not connected
to the photo identification, which was tainted.  (I have included a link to that case
below.)  One problem, of course, is that but for the improper detention of Crews, he
might never have been in court in the first place, to be identified as the perpetrator. 
An additional problem is that but for the improper photo identification, the image of
Crews might never have been "fixed" in the victim's mind, so it is difficult to argue
that this is an independent identification of the
defendant.

In the case provided below, the defendant was
identified in court by more than one person and was identified by at least one witness
who saw him frequently.  This is distinguishable from the scenario provided because
there is a sole witness.  Furthermore, because of the photo identification, an
uncertainty is created. Is she identifying the person she recognizes from the robbery,
or is she identifying the person whose photo she has
seen?

On appeal, all one has to argue on is the record.
There is no opportunity to enter new facts or ask new questions of witnesses.  Did the
photo identification evidence come in? Was there sufficient foundation to establish the
victim's identification as independent of the photo identification?  There are many
factors that would affect an appellate court's decision, but those are central
questions. To the degree that Crews can argue that everything that follows from the
initial improper detention is tainted, he can prevail, but to the degree that the state
can argue that there is evidence in the record to show a truly independent
identification, the state could prevail.