In a grand jury, the statements that have been gotten from any manner as long as they were obtained without violating 4th, 5th or 6th schedule. In our case the statement are admissible because Bugsy was tested in a court of jury as required by schedule five and schedule six. This means that Bugsy’s rights were not violated. On the other hand, the statements are still admissible because the fifth and sixth schedule did not protect a person from a false friend especially when the case is in a grand jury court. If the case was in a normal trial, then the case would have been different. Ella is only a way that the investigation department used to get evidence and without the violation of Bugsy’s rights (case United States vs. Williams, 1992) (Anon, 2009).
The statements are inadmissible because the government surreptitiously secured the incriminating statements about securities fraud knowing that Bugsy had retained an attorney on the securities fraud matter. This is so because the court seems to have violated its own way of investigation, Bugsy was under the law not to be investigated without the presence of her lawyer.
The statement that “the statements are inadmissible because Bugsy’s Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate herself before the grand jury was circumvented by Ella’s acting as a transmitter of her words.” Is not true in a grand jury case this is allowed. There is no defined way of getting information as long as schedule 4, 5 and 6 has not been violated. Finally the statement “The statements are admissible because Ella was only an “ear,” she simply had a conversation with Bugsy and did not deliberately elicit the incriminating information” is true because in a grand jury case, it Is allowed that evidence even from hearsay ne admissible in a court of law. Incase this was in a normal court the case would have been different.