of the crimes against her. Although the appellant contends the fact that he was in handcuffs during the showup unnecessarily suggested to the victim that police believed him to be the suspect, that fact is not dispositive in light of the totality of the circumstances pointing to reliability of the identification. See United States ex rel. Gomes v. N. J., 464 F.2d 686, 687-88 (3d Cir. 1972) (upholding on the scene identification of manslaughter suspect, despite fact that suspect presented to bar patrons while in handcuffs immediately after the crime, because the totality of the circumstances established that witness had good opportunity to view suspect at the time of the crime and had described him to police; identification held not unnecessarily suggestive); Bautista, 23 F.3d at 730 (<HOLDING>); United States v. King, 148 F.3d 968, 970 (8th
holding that an officer engaged in the functional equivalent of interrogation when he asked a suspect to identify clothing found at a crime scene after the suspect was in custody and had invoked his right to silence regardless of the officers intentions holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning holding that a spontaneous accidental identification by two law enforcement officials of a suspect in handcuffs upon their return to the police station was not impermissibly suggestive holding that a showup identification that occurred less than ninety minutes after the commission of the crime and within one mile of the crime scene was not unnecessarily suggestive because of its close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime holding that presentation of suspect at scene in handcuffs and in police custody shortly after raid was not unnecessarily suggestive noting that such immediate identifications serve a useful purpose and are necessary under some circumstances