Final answer:
An overly suggestive lineup violates due process as protection against self-incrimination and the right to counsel are enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. This was evidenced in the Miranda v. Arizona case, which set the precedent for the Miranda Warning. The judiciary seeks to protect individual rights while maintaining public safety, with significant rulings in cases like Safford v. Redding and Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Step-by-step explanation:
An overly suggestive lineup that influences the identification of an accused individual can indeed constitute a violation of due process. Due process is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, which requires the legal system to operate in a manner that is fair to individuals. When police practice involves interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination, it violates the Fifth Amendment. This principle was firmly established by the landmark Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966, which introduced the requirement for police to issue a Miranda Warning informing suspects of their rights, including the right to remaining silent and to having an attorney.
In cases like Safford Unified School District v. Redding and others such as Brandenburg v. Ohio and Stromberg v. California, the courts have upheld the importance of protecting individual rights versus governmental powers. These cases demonstrate the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect society, including the rights of victims. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also plays a significant role in ensuring fair legal procedures are followed, especially in the context of potential discrimination in cases like the Scottsboro Boys.