In Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 643-644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102, 146 L. Ed. 2d 782, 120 S. Ct. 1840 (2000), the Court found error harmless under the "some harm" standard where there was a substantial amount of non-accomplice evidence and the evidence of the witness's accomplice status was tenuous (barely enough to support submission as an accomplice as a matter of fact). The non-accomplice evidence consisted of eyewitness testimony identifying the defendant as the shooter and the defendant's own incriminating statements to non-law enforcement witnesses. Although it was theoretically possible for the jury to: (1) believe that the alleged accomplice was in fact an accomplice; (2) believe this person's testimony; (3) disbelieve two other witnesses, we held that the some harm test was not satisfied by that possibility. It appears from these authorities that the reliability inquiry may be satisfied if: (1) there is non-accomplice evidence, and (2) there is no rational and articulable basis for disregarding the non-accomplice evidence or finding that it fails to connect the defendant to the offense.