in a confessional light. This testimony may or may not have been of some circumstantial relevance to the jury (although standing alone, of course, it would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction). But, upon review, when the court is looking for “overwhelming evidence of guilt,” one would think the court would not have to resort to this sort of an ambiguous, taunting statement. Similarly, the court notes that there was evidence that Trenkler and Shay knew each other, and that Trenkler had knowledge of both electronics and explosives. While the jury might consider this type of circumstantial evidence relevant, it can hardly be said that it does much in the way of providing “overwhelming evidence” of defendant’s guilt. Cf. United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456, 476 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The majority relies most heavily on the
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 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 the erroneous admission of inculpatory grand jury testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when seven people testified at trial that defendant was engaged in marijuana and cocaine dealing and drugs and money were found in defendants constructive possession holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding evidence insufficient for conviction of possession of marijuana amphetamines and barbiturates when those drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other people on the premises