Gabriella S.

Venturina
LEGPROF
Reflection Paper on Bridge of Spies
October 20, 2017

I. Summary

The movie Bridge of Spies was mainly about Atty. Donovan, an insurance
lawyer, who had to partake a new challenge, which was to defend Col. Abel, an
alleged soviet spy who was in the United States at that time.
Donovan was hesitant to be his legal counsel at first, knowing the fact that Col. Abel
was a notorious man, and defending him would have its consequences. However,
there was no other choice but for Donovan to accept the case for Abel to have a
counsel. This was done for the sake of showing that the United States justice system
honors and respects due process of every individual by giving him a fair trial and an
equal opportunity to be represented.

However, Donovan was able to defend his clients rights a bit too well to the
point where instead of a death penalty, Abel was sentenced to a conviction of 30 years
instead. This angered many people such as the people in the court room, the associates
in the firm he works in, as well as the other Americans who knew about it, to the point
where he and his family received threats through gun shots into their home.
Donovans superior even reprimanded him for initiating an appeal session and for
further defending him on another trial when he could have just stopped for the first to
satisfy the first purpose, which was to deliver due process. He contended that
Donovans purpose was not to win the case, but just to deliver due process, and
nothing else. However, Donovan persisted with his defense after he realizes that it is
possible for an American to also be in the situation of Abel, but in their country, and
true enough, this did occur, in fact, it was two American men detained in Germany,
namely Gary Powers, a pilot in the CIAs top secret U-2 spy plane program, and
Frederic Pryor, an American economics student. Upon knowing this, the CIA insisted
that the exchange be made between the two countries, Colonel Rudolf Abel for Gary
Powers, while disregarding Pryor. Despite this, Donovan insisted that both Pryor and
Powers be swapped in exchange of Col. Abel. By the end of it, both Pryor and Powers
were released in exchange of Abel while Donovan was recognized for his successful
negotiations.

II. Reflection

I personally agree on the part where the alleged criminal still had the right to
due process, and the same should apply to our country. I believe that everyone, no
matter what degree or intensity of the offense committed, should be given the right to
be heard and represented as a basic human right. I disagree with Donovans superior
on the part where he asserted that the counsels defense for Abel should end with just
one trial one opportunity of defense, because this can be discriminatory in the part
of the client, whom at that time, was not even proven to be guilty of the alleged crime
due to lack of evidence. The right for due process should be given to each person not
as piecemeal, but as a whole, because due process should start from the beginning, up
to the end, and does not just end in the initial stage or in the first hearing. Each client
must be represented to assert all of the rights that must be put into consideration.
 What really irked me among many scenes in the movie was the part where
Donovans house was shot by unknown people who are against Abel and his act of
defending him. This I believe is unfair to the part of Donovan as he was simply doing
his job, a job his firm forced him to do. It is unfair for all other lawyers, criminal
lawyers oftentimes. They do not deserve such kind of treatment just because they are
defending the alleged guilty person. Whether the person a lawyer is defending is the
criminal or not, the lawyers themselves should not have to suffer any consequences
for defending the person as they are simply doing their jobs as lawyers. It is also an
unmistakable fact that all persons have the right to due process, so this applies to all
kinds of people, whether they may be criminals, victims, and those suffering in
conflict. The lawyers lives should not be in jeopardy as they are merely doing their
jobs which is to defend their client.

I also felt awful for Abel on the part when he was just painting, left for the
bathroom, then upon coming out, his whole place was seized, all his things, his
drawers, everything was forcibly taken hold of. He was even reprimanded for
allegedly refusing to comply with the orders. The worst part is, this fact was asserted
by Donovan as he spoke to the judge, however, the judge contended that the
warrantless search was acceptable in this case because Abel was a spy whose goal is
to cause harm to the country. I personally disagree on this because the warrantless
seizure done, is against the law. The law states that evidence found through
warrantless searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence, and therefore, that
should be followed, as anything done otherwise will result to a violation of law.

In this case, it has not even been proven that Abel was a spy, yet the judge was
already favoring his conviction and even positively enforcing a violation of law in
terms of warrantless searches just to get it over with. Despite knowing well enough
that the warrantless seizures and searches are against the law and that the action done
was wrongly done to Abel whose rights deserved to be asserted for justice on his part,
he did not care enough to even allow Donovan to represent him on that matter.

A judge should not have bias in terms of which party he favors more on the
case, nor should he allow violations of laws because of his personal biases. A judge
should seek for justice to prevail.