However, "we review de novo whether a defendant has been denied due process." State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 83 (Minn. App. 2008) (citing Spann v. State, 704 N.W.2d 486, 489 (Minn. 2005)).

Admission of identification evidence "violates due process if the procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 83-84 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted). This court "review[s] de novo whether a defendant has been denied due process."

"The test is whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, and, if so, whether the identification is nonetheless reliable when considered as part of the totality of the circumstances." State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 84 (Minn. App. 2008). Identification procedure

"The admission of pretrial identification evidence violates due process if the procedure 'was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'" State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 83-84 (Minn.App. 2008) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)).

"The admission of pretrial identification evidence violates due process if the procedure 'was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'" State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 83-84 (Minn. App. 2008) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S. Ct. 967, 971 (1968)). Whether an identification procedure is so suggestive as to violate due process is an issue appellate courts review de novo.

The magistrate and district court both rejected that argument. The district court, in rejecting Vargas's argument, relied on State v. Hooks , 752 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). In Hooks , an undercover officer completed a controlled purchase of narcotics. The officer and the dealer were in separate cars that were pulled up alongside one another; the drivers were in reach of one another, and the transaction lasted less than one minute.

"[W]e review de novo whether a defendant has been denied due process." State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 83 (Minn. App. 2008). "The admission of pretrial-identification evidence violates due process if the procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."

"District courts have considerable latitude when choosing jury instructions" and "the instructions, viewed as a whole, must accurately state the law." State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 86 (Minn.App. 2008). Although Minnesota law recognizes the power of a jury to acquit a defendant "despite the law and the facts," that power "is not a right of juries but something which results from a number of things including the right of a criminal defendant to have a jury trial, the rule prohibiting postverdict inquiry into the thought processes of jurors, and the rules against appellate review of verdicts of acquittal."

However, whether an identification procedure is so suggestive as to violate due process is reviewed de novo. State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 83 (Minn.App. 2008).

It is preferable to show a witness images of different individuals because "too few viable identification options unfairly suggests who the witness should identify." State v. Hooks, 752 N.W.2d 79, 85 (Minn.App. 2008). In this case, Officer Weinmann showed K.K. three photographs of three different suspects, and each of them matched the general description of the robbers.