In In re Anthony T. (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 92, the trial court declined to decide whether the actions of private citizens could foreclose the government from using a particular identification. (Id. at p. 98.) There, a young man robbed a chicken restaurant, and was observed by two employees, Forch and Dixon. Shortly thereafter an individual named Randy, on his own volition, showed a yearbook photograph of the defendant to the restaurant manager, who showed it to Forch. Forch opined that the photograph depicted the robber. Dixon had heard rumors on the streets that defendant was the culprit. A police officer showed her a copy of the yearbook photo and asked whether she recognized anyone on a particular page. Both Dixon and Forch identified the defendant at trial. On appeal, the court reversed an order declaring Anthony to be a ward of the court on grounds unrelated to the identification procedure. However, the appellate court addressed the propriety of the identification testimony for the guidance of the trial court on remand. The court reasoned, "The police were not the ones who began spreading the rumor throughout the neighborhood that appellant was the robber. Likewise, it was not the police who came up to Mr. Forch, showed him appellant's picture, and asked if appellant was the robber. But, if appellant was wrongfully identified and convicted it matters not to him whether the injustice was due to the actions of the private citizens or the police; the injury to him is the same " (In re Anthony T., supra, 112 Cal. App. 3d at p. 98.) The court concluded that it "need not resolve the thorny problem of whether the actions of private citizens could foreclose the People from using any identification testimony," because the People had shown that any corrupting effect of the identification procedures had been purged. (Ibid.)