conclude that all the evidence obtained by the police following their unconstitutional entry into appellant’s home — including appellant’s statements in the room, the video recording of activity in the room made by Officer Tobe’s body camera, and Mr. Ward’s property — should have been suppressed and was admitted at appellant’s trial in error. The government does not contend that this constitutional error was harmless. III. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. 1 . U.S. Const, a D.C.2001) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); emphasis in the original). For this purpose, we consider all the evidence admitted at trial, includ United States, 483 A.2d 1125, 1131-32 (D.C. 1984) (<HOLDING>)). As to appellant’s statements after the
holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt holding erroneous admission of evidence not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the only other evidence against defendant was the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating witness of questionable credibility holding that admission of statements obtained in violation of miranda was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the substance of the statements was introduced through other untainted testimony holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative