Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/5/5massappct871.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:23:06+00:00

Document:
after the police discovery of the robbery and transmission of the broadcast already referred to. The confrontation took place within minutes of the arrest of the defendant and Sherrod; for all that appears, the arresting officers were the first to see the defendant and Sherrod following the robbery and broadcast; it did not appear whether the handcuffs on the defendant were visible to the victim (see Commonwealth v. MacMillan, ante, 314, 317-318 ) when he identified the defendant and Sherrod before they got out of the police cruiser (compare Commonwealth v. Denault, 362 Mass. 564 , 566 ); and the evidence was silent concerning the number of persons (other than police officers) the victim (the attendant in an all night gasoline filling station) might have seen during the interval between the robbery and the confrontation (see Commonwealth v. Barnett, 371 Mass. 87 , 92 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1049 ). The judge did not err in impliedly ruling that the confrontation had not been impermissibly suggestive. See generally Commonwealth v. Connolly, 356 Mass. 617 , 623-624, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 843 (1970); Commonwealth v. Denault, 362 Mass. at 566-567; Commonwealth v. Barnett, 371 Mass. at 91-93; Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 372 Mass. 783 , 789-790 (1977). 3. In view of that ruling there was no occasion for the judge to consider the reliability of the victim's identification of the defendant during the course of the confrontation (see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 109-114 ) or whether the victim's proposed in-court identification of the defendant would be based on his original observations of the defendant during the course of the robbery (see Commonwealth v. Chase, 372 Mass. 736 , 745-746 ).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.