Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of all evidence, we cannot say that we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the judgment.”); Commonwealth v. Carbaugh, 356 Pa.Super. 42, 47, 514 A.2d 133, 137 (1986) (same conclusion); Commonwealth v. Petrino, 332 Pa.Super. 13, 29, 480 A.2d 1160, 1168 (1984) (same conclusion); but see Commonwealth v. Holland, 518 Pa. 405, 415, 543 A.2d 1068, 1072 (1988) (introduction of statements made by lay witnesses regarding the voluntariness of a confession found to be harmless error); Commonwealth v. Maloney, 469 Pa. 342, 355, 365 A.2d 1237, 1244 (1976) (curative instruction given following improper admission of statement regarding right to silence held sufficient not to require mistrial); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 246 Pa.Super. 132, 138, 369 A.2d 846, 849 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, no such case holds that the 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) recognizing that harmless error analysis is appropriate even if presumptively coerced confession is improperly introduced (C) recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (D) 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  (E) holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature
Output (English): holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature