463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases

seized. But the testimony of the defendants in Mendes
was never the "fruit" of any primary illegality
warranting invocation of exclusionary principles. The
defendant in this case was not placed, by illegal
conduct that should have led to suppression and ought
to be deterred, in the same "Catch-22" position as the
defendant in Charras.
To conclude, there is no reason why the normal
harmless error analysis, in which the Degraca factors
are applied to "the totality of the record before us,
weighing the properly admitted and the improperly
admitted evidence together," Tyree, 455 Mass. at 701,
should not continue to be undertaken in reviewing
Melendez-Diaz issues for harmless error.
B. Applying the Degraca/Mahdi Factors, The
Record Demonstrates Beyond A Reasonable
Doubt That The Admission Of The
Certificate of Analysis Was Harmless
Error As To Ronald Mendes.
In light of the Degraca factors, in particular in
consideration of "the premise of the defense" and
"whether the erroneously admitted evidence was merely
cumulative of properly admitted evidence," the
Melendez-Diaz error was harmless as to Ronald Mendes.
The first Degraca factor, "the importance of the
evidence," it is true that the certificates were part
37