They may be legally separate, but I would think it very unlikely for one to be quashed without the other. If improper tactics were used to make a witness believe that the person in a photograph committed a crime, such belief would likely cause the witness to identify the person shown in the photograph as having committed in the crime, whether or not the witness had ever seen that person before.
I do agree this is probably a theoretical argument. When the photo array ID is tossed, I suspect that in court IDs will very likely be barred too.
I don't disagree that if the motion to toss the photo line-up IDs is granted, it's likely the other issue of the in-court will be also granted, but it's not automatic. The question calls for a separate ruling.
Right now this case is mostly about procedure and the fact that the two forms of identification are separate is an important distinction.