With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, we emphasize that the seamless integration of a hearing on a motion to suppress with a trial on the merits should be avoided. While a defendant who challenges the admissibility of a one-on-one show-up identification procedure does not have a right to a discrete evidentiary hearing distinct from the trial, such a distinct hearing, even if in voir dire, is preferable to what occurred here. See Commonwealth v. Simmons, 383 Mass. at 47 (“Although a voir dire is not constitutionally required in all instances in which the admissibility of identification evidence is challenged, the better course would have been to have conducted a voir dire on the admissibility of the victim’s identification . . .”), citing Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 345 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The procedure employed in this case is viewed

A: recognizing that prudence of hearing out of presence of jury to determine admissibility of identification evidence has been emphasized by many decisions in the united states courts of appeals most of which have in various ways admonished trial courts to use that procedure
B: holding trial court properly conducted hearing outside jurys presence to determine admissibility of the evidence and the existence of a deal
C: recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
D: holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction  over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court
A.