These appeals from convictions on several counts for armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon raise questions concerning the validity of the procedures employed by the Government to obtain photographic, line-up and in-court identifications of both appellants. As the record shows, the Government’s case against the appellants rested substantially on identification testimony of several eye-witnesses. Six witnesses testified for the Government at trial. Five were victims of the robbery1 and four of these identified one or both of the defendants as participants. Only appellant Johnson took the stand and denied participating in the hold-up.
In cases such as these, the error is not likely to be harmless if constitutional rules are violated in obtaining identification testimony.2
Elimination of any of the identification evidence against both Johnson and Estes might require reversal of their convictions and an order for a new trial. However, the record does not furnish an adequate basis for review of the trial court’s decision to admit certain testimony and we therefore remand these cases to the District Court for further findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to three specific issues.
I.
On July 1, 1968 at approximately 11:15 a. m. a Safeway store located at 218 K Street N.W. was robbed by two armed Negro males. A third lingered at the door. One of them held a gun on the store manager Mr. Gilbert Musselman, took cash from a tray in his office and then struck Mr. Musselman several times with his gun. Mr. John Gaines, the produce department manager, was told by one robber to open the store safe and ordered by the second robber to lie down on the floor. Mr. Kenneth Faunteroy, a cashier at the store, was ordered by one of the. robbers to empty his cash drawer. Mr. James Richardson, Jr., another cashier, was also robbed at gunpoint. Finally Mr. Allan Lane, a customer in the store, was ordered by one robber to lie on the floor. The second later approached him and took his watch from his wrist.
Following the robbery, the police obtained photographic identifications of both Johnson and Estes from several of the eyewitnesses and arrested both sus*1366pects. In August, Musselman, Gaines and Faunteroy attended a police lineup and made further identifications of the defendants. In March of 1969 the trial court conducted a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of'the photographic, lineup and in-court identification evidence. The trial judge excluded Mr. Gaines’ photographic identification of the defendant Estes and ruled all other evidence admissible.
All five above-mentioned victims of the robbery subsequently testified at trial and the following identifications were made: Mr. Musselman testified that he recognized the defendant Estes in court as the robber who had beaten him; and that he had previously identified a photograph of Mr. Estes and picked him out of a police lineup. Mr. Gaines testified that he recognized both defendants in court and had picked them both out of the police lineup. Mr. Faunteroy made an in-court identification of Johnson and testified that he had also recognized Johnson in the lineup. Mr. Lane identified both defendants as the robbers in court, and testified that he had identified them both from photographs prior to trial.
Each appellant challenges the admission of much of this testimony for a variety of reasons. Those issues requiring further consideration by the District Court will be considered in detail.
II.
Substitute Counsel at the Lineup
Appellant Estes contends on appeal that the substitute counsel representing him at the police lineup never provided any information about the lineup to his trial counsel, and did not participate in the trial preparations. On this point, the record is incomplete. Both Johnson and Estes, therefore, filed a motion in this court to supplement the record to include affidavits never presented to the District Court from the substitute counsel and from the appellants’ trial counsel. We agreed to postpone decision on appellants’ motions until the argument on the merits. We have decided that the proper course is for appellants to present their motion to supplement the record to the District Court.
The facts presented in the affidavits, if admitted into the record, raise a serious question about the adequacy of appellants’ representation by counsel at the lineup under United States v. Wade3 and Gilbert v. California.4 The affidavits purport to prove that according to the practice established in 1968, attorneys from the Legal Aid Agency assisted on an ad hoc basis at lineups when defense counsel had not yet been appointed. A Legal Aid attorney attended the lineup as counsel for both Johnson and Estes. In the affidavits, both substitute and trial counsel state that to the best of their recollection, they never communicated about the lineup.
While we express no opinion on the merits of appellants’ claims in this case, the controlling principles of law were outlined by the Supreme Court in Wade and Gilbert. In Wade, the Court left open the possibility that substitute counsel might suffice if “substitute counsel’s presence * * * eliminate(s) the hazards which render the lineup a critical stage for the presence of the suspect’s own counsel.” 5
The hazards which the Court had in mind were not limited to those possibilities for prejudice which the very presence of an attorney at the lineup might discourage or even eliminate. The Court was also concerned to assure a “meaningful confrontation” in the courtroom with full cross-examination into the details of the witness’ lineup identification of the defendant. While the presence of substitute counsel rather than the defendant’s own trial counsel does not in itself violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, see United States v. *1367Kirby, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 340, 427 F.2d 610 (1970), the Wade and Gilbert decisions may be read to presume that the substitute counsel would assist trial counsel in preparations to challenge the fairness of the lineup and to cross-examine witnesses who had been present.6
This court went further than assuming that substitute counsel would communicate with trial counsel and suggested in Marshall v. United States, supra, note 2, 141 U.S.App.D.C. at 6, 436 F.2d at 160 n. 18 that the Government may have to assume the burden of ensuring that the substitute counsel’s observations are transmitted to trial counsel.
We note only the gravity of the issue presented.7 In view of the seemingly honest mistake of trial counsel in failing to raise the question at trial and the subsequent appointment of new counsel for this appeal, we think the appellants’ attempt to supplement the record should not be foreclosed in this court. Since these cases will be remanded for reasons outlined in Parts III and IV of this opinion, on remand the defendants shall have the opportunity to seek leave to supplement the record in the District Court. In the interests of judicial economy, appellants’ claims are better disposed of directly rather than by subsequent collateral review.
III.
Testimony of Mr. Gaines
Both Johnson and Estes challenge the admission of Mr. Gaines’ identification testimony on the ground that his recognition of them in the lineup and in court was tainted by the overly suggestive photographic identifications the police had earlier obtained from him. In Simmons v. United States the Supreme Court held that “convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside * * * if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” 8 Rather than banning the use of pretrial photographic identifications in all cases, the Court suggested that each case must be considered on a careful analysis of its own facts. Accordingly, this court has established a two-pronged inquiry whenever questions of suggestive photographic identifications are raised:
“(1) whether the photographic display itself was impermissibly suggestive and (2) if so, whether there is nevertheless an independent source for the in-court identification.” 9
Applying these tests to the facts of the instant appeals, we find no ground to overturn the trial court’s ruling that Gaines’ photographic identification of Johnson was not impermissibly suggestive but we remand Estes’ claim to the District Court for a further hearing.
The circumstances surrounding the photographic identifications of both appellants are as follows: On July 2, 1968, the day after the robbery, Mr. Gaines was taken to a police station where he *1368viewed several books of black and white police photographs. He failed to make any identification at that time. The police then informed him that several photographs were missing from the files, in fact that they had been taken to the Safeway store. Gaines admitted at the pretrial hearing that he assumed these pictures were of particular interest. At the store he examined about 30 loose photographs and made a tentative10 identification of Johnson. A few days later the police brought a group of 15 or 20 colored photographs to the store and told Gaines that it included photographs of the man he had picked out before. Gaines again positively identified the photograph of Johnson.11 The police then selected a photograph of the defendant Estes and told Gaines that this man was a friend of Johnson’s, the man Gaines had just identified. At this point Gaines identified Estes as the second robber. At the lineup held two months later, Gaines identified both Johnson and Estes and was able to identify them at the hearing prior to trial.
The trial judge ruled that Gaines’ photographic identification of Estes was the product of suggestive procedures and excluded it from trial. However, on the basis of Gaines’ testimony12 he ruled that Gaines’ identifications of Estes both at the lineup and in court were based on independent observations at the time of the robbery and were not tainted by the impermissible display of Estes’ photograph. All of Gaines’ testimony concerning his identifications of Johnson was ruled admissible.
As stated previously, we take no exception to the trial court’s decision to admit all of Gaines’ testimony against Johnson. The gratuitous comment of the police indicating that the group of colored photographs included a picture of the man Gaines had identified previously13 was perhaps unfortunate but was not of sufficient impact to qualify as impermissible suggestiveness,14 particularly since Gaines had made his prior spontaneous identification of Johnson.
The impact of the police comment that a particular photograph por*1369trayed a friend of Johnson’s was of course far greater. It caused Gaines to make an identification of a man he had previously failed to identify15 or describe to the police.16 The police comment served to single out Estes’ photograph for display17 and indicated police suspicion of Estes by linking him irrevocably to Johnson, the man Gaines felt certain had been one of the robbers18 We thus agree with the trial court that the display of Estes’ photograph to Gaines was impermissibly suggestive and raised a substantial likelihood of misidentification. However, we must disagree with the trial court’s decision to admit Gaines’ lineup and in-court identifications of Estes.
It appears from the record that the trial court relied heavily on Gaines’ own opinion that these later identifications were based on a source independent of the photographic display.19 The inquiry at the pretrial hearing went no further.20 While Gaines may have been a credible and convincing witness, his statements alone cannot provide the "clear and convincing”21 evidence with which the Government must prove the existence of an independent source. This court has warned against heavy reliance on the reliability of a witness who protests too positively about the source of his identifications,22 and has held that this testimony must be evaluated in the light of all the circumstances.23
Among the relevant factors to be considered in this evaluation are:
the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of *1370any discrepancy between any prelineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification pri- or to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification.24
We have ourselves examined the record 25 and find sorely lacking any detailed inquiry into these factors or any other facts which might buttress Gaines’ own opinion. What we do derive from the record is that there is enough of a question as to whether Gaines had an independent source for his lineup and in-court identifications of Estes to require further clarification. His opportunity to observe the criminal act appears to have been brief;26 his description of Estes was vague and contradicted;27 he completely failed to identify Estes from photographs prior to the suggestive display ; 28 and a considerable period of time elapsed between the robbery and the lineup in which Gaines did identify Estes.29 If these factors stood alone there would be a substantial question as to the finding of an independent source for Gaines’ identification of Estes. However, we note that such findings are overturned on appeal only with great infrequency,30 and then only on the basis of a complete and detailed record.31 We do not have *1371such a record in this case and there may be facts as yet unexplored or undeveloped which will substantiate Gaines’ certainty that he had an independent source. We have therefore decided to remand the case for further inquiry into those factors outlined in Wade which may indicate the existence of an independent source for Gaines’ lineup and in-court identifications of Estes, with particular emphasis on Gaines’ opportunity to observe the robber he identified as Estes during the criminal act.32 It is of course unfortunate that several years have elapsed since the robbery and the witness’ memory may be less than complete. However, the decision to remand rather than to reverse Estes conviction 33 is made because the pretrial inquiry halted with Gaines’ testimony that he was sure he remembered Estes from the robbery. We cannot be completely certain that all the. circumstances relevant to this question are now before us.
IV.
Lane’s Identification of Johnson’s Photograph
Appellant Johnson contends that the testimony of Mr. Lane concerning his identification of a color photograph of Johnson was admitted in error34 because the photograph was obtained in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Johnson himself sought to raise this objection in the absence of the jury but the inquiry was closed without development of the facts.
From the record it appears that Johnson visited a local police station on July 4, 1968, in search of his friend Estes. The police took a color photograph of Johnson during this visit, the same photograph later showed to Lane and mentioned by him at trial. The warrant for Johnson’s arrest was not issued until July 6, subsequent to Johnson’s visit to the police station, and it appears that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him until after the color photograph was taken.
Johnson’s contention is that although he appeared at the police station voluntarily, the photograph was taken without his consent — that, in fact, the police coerced him to pose for the photograph and manipulated his presence at the station into a form of illegal detention. If these facts are true, the photographic seizure of his person during an involuntary detention may run afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.
*1372In Davis v. Mississippi,35 the Supreme Court held that brief detentions, for the sole purpose of obtaining fingerprint evidence, may be subject to this Fourth Amendment proscription regardless of whether they occur in the investigatory or accusatory stage of the prosecution, and held the prints obtained during Davis’ involuntary detention subject to the exclusionary rule.
The Court declined to formulate a general rule covering all brief detentions to obtain fingerprints, but based its ruling solely on the facts of Davis’ detention. The Court noted that there was not probable cause to arrest him at the time he was detained; that Davis did not accompany the police willingly nor submit to the fingerprinting voluntarily; that no warrant had been obtained for his arrest; and that he was detained twice and interrogated as well. These circumstances, the Court found, made the seizure of his fingerprints unreasonable.
Whether the facts in Johnson’s case will cross the threshhold established in Davis is a determination which may be made only after a full inquiry into the facts. Whether or not Johnson consented to being photographed is of course of major importance. His attorney reported that Johnson stated “he had little choice but to do it.” Such a statement does not convey the defendant’s voluntary agreement free from duress or coercion. Cf. Judd v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 190 F.2d 649 (1951). Consideration of this question must be deferred until the facts have been fully developed in a hearing in the District Court. See Morales v. New York, 396 U.S. 102, 90 S.Ct. 291, 24 L.Ed.2d 299 (1969).
On remand, the court should inquire into the circumstances of Johnson’s presence in the police station 36 and the conditions under which his photograph 37 was taken. Once again, if error was committed in the admission of Lane’s photographic identification of Johnson, the gravity of that error must be evaluated in light of the entire case against the defendant and the rule outlined in Harrington v. California and Chapman v. California.
We have considered the appellants’ other contentions in the event that they might arise in a subsequent trial ordered by the District Court. We find that the peaceful police entry into Estes’ home during the day to search for him under the aegis of a valid arrest warrant is permissible under our recent en banc decision, Dorman v. United States,38 although admittedly the police were not in “hot pursuit” of Estes since three days had passed since the day of the robbery. In the course of their search for Estes, the police officers found a pistol within plain view inside a closet, an area in which a person might conceal himself. Within these limited circumstances, and absent any showing that the police engaged in a general search of the home, the pistol was properly admitted into evidence at trial.
Appellants’ other contentions are without merit. The eases are remanded to the District Court for further hearing as outlined in Parts II, III and IY of this opinion.