In the final analysis, the courts, as noted above, look to see if error has infected the entire trial. Generally, this infection is limited to a crucial piece of evidence that resonates throughout the trial transcript. In Wright's case, the infection is not limited to one crucial piece of evidence. Certainly, as noted throughout, the wrongful admission of Adams's statement changed the entire course of trial. It changed the State's theory as to Wright's role in the offense, it changed the instructions given to the jury, and it changed by reducing the State's burden of proof at the punishment phase of trial. But the infection was not limited to procedural alterations. The statement set an emotional tone for the trial that cast Wright as a calculating, cold blooded killer and made him more, rather than less, morally blameworthy.

Although this infection itself is serious enough to be considered fatal, it is by no means the only infection. The State withheld exculpatory evidence of the co-defendant's admission that he, and he alone, committed the murder. By itself, such a revelation has earned other appellants post conviction relief. The State also withheld evidence that a key prosecution witness, the one required to prove that Wright had control of Vick's property after the murder, was the recipient of an offer from the prosecution sufficient to undermine his credibility.

 Wright maintains that even under this balkanized approach to review, many of the errors noted are sufficient to justify relief. However, Wright also asserts that examining each error in a vacuum, without considering the synergistic effect that the errors have on each other, is inappropriate and unprecedented. When Wright criticizes the fingerprint testimony, he is told that it does not matter because of the Mosley testimony. When Wright criticizes the Mosley testimony, he is told it does not matter because of Adams's statement. When Wright criticizes Adams's statement, he is told it does not matter because of Cron's testimony. All of Wright's efforts to seek fair adjudication of his complaints have been subjected to this endless logic loop. In the final analysis, each error not only matters on its own, but there is no single piece of crucial evidence introduced that was not infected by the State's misconduct in one fashion or another.

 Truly, it can be said that the entire body of the trial record is infected from head to toe.