With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". certainty at the pre-trial identification as a factor to consider when determining whether the witness has an independent basis to make an in-court idenli-fication. See Hardiman v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1201, 1205 (Ind.2000) and Young, 700 N.E.2d at 1146; but see Logan, 729 N.E.2d at 132 and Flowers, 738 N.E.2d at 1056 (both not listing a witness's level of certainty at the pretrial identification as one of the factors to be considered). Moreover, even were we not to consider Patel's level of certainty during the pre-trial identifications, we would still conclude that he had an independent basis upon which to identify Jones during trial. 5 . Jones claims that neither Khan nor Patel accurately described details of Jones’s appearance such as facial hair or exact height. Khan and Patel's de (<HOLDING>). 6 . Of course, if Khan was able to identify

A: holding in camera hearing was needed to determine whether the incourt identification was of independent origin or was the tainted product of the circumstances surrounding a bond hearing where a witness saw a suspect at a bond hearing prior to his incourt identification of the suspect and the witness may have gotten a fix on the suspect at the bond hearing
B: holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial
C: holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802
D: holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant
D.