See Marshall, 173 F.3d at 1316. The government also produced “substantial circumstantial evidence” far more convincing than that found in the case before us; “the defendants had large sums of cash (including the recorded bills used by [the informant in conducting the drug transaction]) and lived in a trailer filled with items used in crack production.” Id. Although we noted that the government informant’s “testimony, if believed, would be more than sufficient to sustain Marshall’s convictions,” id. at 1318 n. 15, we vacated the defendants’ convictions, reasoning that because the chief witness was “an informant of questionable credibility,” id. at 1316, two evidentiary errors could improperly have swayed the jury. See also United States v. Blakey, 14 F.3d 1557, 1561 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Beale, 921 F.2d 1412, 1425
holding that evidence consisting of the testimony of three witnesses who each had motives to lie was not overwhelming and that prosecutorial misconduct therefore was not harmless error holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that the error of allowing unsequestered witnesses to testify in violation of a motion to separate witnesses was harmless error because the state presented overwhelming evidence supporting defendants conviction