In Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 944, 149 L. Ed. 2d 349, 121 S. Ct. 1407 (2001), the defendant, in custody awaiting trial on capital murder, told a fellow inmate that he wanted to hire someone to kill two people. The inmate told the police, and the police arranged a plan with the inmate. The inmate told the defendant that he knew of a hit man, who was really undercover officer Gary Johnson. The defendant was interested and had five more people he wanted killed, four of whom were to be witnesses at his trial. The defendant spoke to Johnson on the phone to hire him, then later spoke to Johnson in person, but he eventually backed out of the murder plan because he was afraid the police were on to him. The State introduced evidence of the solicitation at the punishment phase of the defendant's capital murder trial. In Wesbrook v. State, the trial court overruled a motion to suppress evidence that the defendant argued had been obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The complained-of evidence allegedly established an attempt by the defendant to solicit the murder of various individuals, including witnesses at the defendant's trial. Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 116. Facts developed at a hearing on the matter showed that an informant, a fellow inmate at the Harris County Jail, became acquainted with the defendant about three months prior to the defendant's trial. During numerous conversations, the defendant expressed a desire to hire someone to kill two individuals (the defendant's ex-wife and her husband). The informant contacted law enforcement. In exchange for a favorable recommendation by the State during the prosecution of his own pending charges, the informant arranged a meeting between the defendant and undercover investigator Gary Johnson, who was to pose as a hit man. Johnson tape-recorded the conversation he had with the defendant concerning the murder solicitations. In the recorded conversation, the defendant expressed his desire to have murdered the two individuals he had mentioned to the informant, plus five others, four of which were to be, or already had been, witnesses in his capital murder trial. Johnson admitted at trial that he had assumed the evidence would be used against the defendant at his capital murder trial. Id. at 116-17. In Wesbrook, the defendant had killed five people in the course of committing the subject capital murder. There was admissible evidence that the defendant attempted to solicit from prison the murders of two others (his ex-wife and her husband). These were the critical facts that led three judges to conclude the error was harmless: "because the jury possessed details of both the crime itself and the solicitation to murder, there is no reasonable likelihood that the inadmissible portion of Jones' testimony, considered either alone or in context, moved the jury from a state of nonpersuasion to persuasion regarding the issue of future dangerousness." Id. In sum, after the defendant's right to counsel had attached, the defendant and another inmate engaged in conversations in which the defendant expressed a desire to kill his ex-wife and her common-law husband. Hoping to exploit this information to his benefit, the other inmate contacted law enforcement through the local Crime Stoppers program. After receiving this information, the authorities entered into an agreement with the inmate: he would solicit more information from the defendant and the authorities would put in a good word for the inmate in his pending prosecution. Pursuant to instructions, the inmate arranged telephone conferences between the defendant and an undercover investigator posing as a "hit man." These telephone conversations were recorded. A majority of the Court held that information obtained after the inmate struck a deal with the authorities had been obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.