On retrial, Tamarat Martin-Argaw was convicted of trying to hire a hit man to kill his estranged wife, her adult son, and a family friend while he was already jailed for an earlier violent attack on his wife. He argued that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by limiting evidence about a pending indictment against one of the State's witnesses. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed. It concluded that even if the restriction on cross-examination was error, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. The court's reasoning emphasized that the challenged witness played only a minor and cumulative role, that other witnesses and recordings independently documented Martin-Argaw's murder-for-hire scheme, and that the jury heard overwhelming evidence from the undercover investigation, jail communications, and the history of Martin-Argaw's violence against the intended victim.