Yes, a defendant may ask a judge or magistrate to order a physical pretrial lineup, but the court does not have to order one every time identification is disputed. Under Evans v. Superior Court, a request is strongest when identity is material and there is a reasonable likelihood of mistaken identification that a lineup would tend to resolve. The court weighs the likely value of the lineup against the burdens of arranging it. Evans v. Superior Court.

Ask promptly and explain what a lineup could clarify

There is no fixed number of days that automatically makes a request timely or late. Counsel should consider making the request as soon as practicable after arrest or arraignment, before the witness has repeated opportunities to view or identify the accused. Explain why the witness’s identification matters to the case and how a fair physical lineup could test it.

Bring the initial description, the witness’s opportunity to see the person, lighting and distance, first identification method and date, any photo array or show-up, and the witness’s certainty at the first identification. Note any later identification, preliminary-hearing confrontation, or change in appearance. The judge considers both the defense value and practical burdens on police, prosecutors, the court, and witnesses.

Delay can matter because the lineup may add less information after the witness has already identified the accused. In People v. Baines, the court upheld denial where the request came after a preliminary-hearing identification and the delay was unexplained, despite an otherwise adequate factual showing. People v. Abel also discussed how a long delay and existing photographic identifications reduced the added value of a physical lineup on that record. Neither case sets a universal day-count cutoff. People v. Baines; People v. Abel.

This is not a motion to suppress an earlier identification

A defense-requested lineup asks the court to create a new identification procedure before trial. A challenge to an already conducted police photo array or show-up asks whether that procedure was impermissibly suggestive and should be excluded. A jury instruction about evaluating identification is another, later question. One procedure does not automatically resolve the others.

A witness’s failure to identify someone in a requested lineup does not itself dismiss the case, and denial of a lineup request does not automatically suppress an earlier identification. The practical issue is whether the proposed procedure would provide useful evidence that the existing identification record lacks. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley handles California identification and criminal-defense matters. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the timeline and request.