While unintended, these sentences “naturally and necessarily” imply guilt from the defendants’ silences; they indicate a requirement that innocent people must supply defenses, and in that way, the remarks violated the Fifth Amendment. Once a constitutional violation has been found, “the government can only prevail if it sustains the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have been convicted absent the prosecutor’s unconstitutional remarks.” Cotnam, 88 F.3d at 500 (quoting United States ex rel. Burke v. Greer, 756 F.2d 1295, 1302 (7th Cir.1985)). Considering the overwhelming nature of the evidence, we agree with the district court that the error was entirely harmless. See, e.g., Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Cotnam, 88 F.3d at 499-500; Rodriguez v.
holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error 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 holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases