In the 1972 case Neil, Warden v. Biggers, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a witness's identification of a suspect from an earlier crime could be used as evidence if that identification process had been suggestive and potentially unreliable. The court ruled in favor of Neil, stating that even though the police lineup may have been suggestive (the defendant was presented to the victim alone instead of among other potential suspects), it did not necessarily mean it was unreliable or violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment. The reliability should be evaluated based on factors such as opportunity for viewing at time of crime, level of attention during incident, accuracy description prior to confrontation etc., rather than focusing solely on suggestiveness aspect during lineup procedure.

In the dissenting opinion for Neil, Warden v. Biggers, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a rape conviction based on an identification made by the victim seven months after her attack was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this ruling disregarded established principles of due process and fair trial rights. According to him, such a long gap between crime and identification could lead to serious misidentifications due to memory decay or suggestibility under police influence. Moreover, he criticized the majority's reliance on factors like certainty expressed by witness at confrontation while ignoring other crucial aspects like opportunity for accurate observation during crime occurrence or reliability of initial description given by victim immediately after incident. He believed these factors were more reliable in determining accuracy of eyewitness identifications than confidence expressed much later under potentially suggestive circumstances.