robbery scene, and the responding officer discovered evidence of the crime left by a suspect fleeing the scene, all of which is true but does nothing to incriminate Adamson. The State’s case against Adamson rested on his own confession, which he claimed was fabricated, and on the accomplice statements, which di rectly implicated him in the robbery. Without looking to the accomplice statements for their truth, we cannot say that the evidence against Adamson, i.e., his confession alone, was so overwhelming as to make the unrestricted admission of the accomplice statements of little moment. There were no eyewitness statements identifying Adamson as taking part in the robbery, nor was there any physical evidence tying him to the robbery. Cf. Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256, 276 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We do not suggest that, had there been no
holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is subject to a harmless error analysis when the defendants guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt holding harmless the admission of a nontestifying codefendants confession in violation of the confrontation clause when there was extensive evidence of the defendants guilt including the defendants allegedly coerced confession and an eyewitness who testified that he was absolutely certain that the defendant committed the crime holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession holding that even the admission of a coerced confession may be harmless error and noting that  the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendants guilt or innocence 