Gabriella S. Venturina LEGPROF Reflection Paper on Bridge of Spies October 20, 20! ".
Su##ar$
%&e #o'ie (Bridge of Spies) *as #ainl$ about +tt$. ono'an, an insurance la*$er, *&o &ad to parta-e a ne* c&allenge, *&ic& *as to defend ol. +bel, an alleged so'iet sp$ *&o *as in t&e /nited States at t&at ti#e. ono'an *as &esitant to be &is legal counsel at first, -no*ing t&e fact t&at ol. +bel *as a notorious #an, and defending &i# *ould &a'e its conseuences. 1o*e'er, t&ere *as no ot&er c&oice but for ono'an to accept t&e case for +bel to &a'e a counsel. counsel. %&is *as done for t&e sa-e of s&o*ing t&at t&e /nited States States ustice ustice s$ste# &onors &onors and respects respects due process process of e'er$ indi'idual indi'idual b$ gi'ing &i# a fair trial and an eual opportunit$ to be represented. 1o*e'er, ono'an *as able to defend &is client3s rig&ts a bit too *ell to t&e point *&ere instead of a deat& penalt$, +bel *as sentenced to a con'iction of 40 $ears instead. %&is angered #an$ people suc& as t&e people in t&e court roo#, t&e associates in t&e fir# &e *or-s in, as *ell as t&e ot&er +#ericans *&o -ne* about it, to t&e point *&er *&eree &e and and &is &is fa#i fa#il$ l$ recei recei'e 'ed d t&rea t&reats ts t&ro t&roug ug& & gun gun s&ot s&otss into into t&ei t&eirr &o#e &o#e.. ono'an3s superior e'en repri#anded &i# for initiating an appeal session and for furt&er defending &i# on anot&er trial *&en &e could &a'e ust stopped for t&e first to satisf satisf$ $ t&e t&e first first purp purpos ose, e, *&ic& *&ic& *as *as to deli deli'e 'err due due proc process ess.. 1e cont conten ende ded d t&at t&at ono'an3s purpose *as not to *in t&e case, but ust to deli'er due process, and not&ing else. 1o*e'er, ono'an persisted *it& &is defense after &e reali5es t&at it is possible for an +#erican to also be in t&e situation of +bel, but in t&eir countr$, countr$, and true enoug&, t&is did occur, in fact, it *as t*o +#erican #en detained in Ger#an$, na#el$ Gar$ Po*ers, a pilot in t&e "+3s top secret /62 sp$ plane progra#, and Frederic Pr$or, an +#erican econo#ics student. /pon -no*ing t&is, t&e "+ insisted t&at t&e e7c&ange be #ade bet*een t&e t*o countries, olonel Rudolf +bel for Gar$ Po*ers, *&ile disregarding Pr$or. espite t&is, ono'an insisted t&at bot& Pr$or and Po*ers be s*apped in e7c&ange of ol. +bel. B$ t&e end of it, bot& Pr$or and Po*ers *ere released in e7c&ange e7c&ange of +bel *&ile ono'an *as recogni5ed recogni5ed for &is successful successful negotiations. " ".
Reflection
" personall$ agree on t&e part *&ere t&e alleged cri#inal still &ad t&e rig&t to due process, and t&e sa#e s&ould appl$ to our countr$. " belie'e t&at e'er$one, no #atter *&at degree or intensit$ of t&e offense co##itted, s&ould be gi'en t&e rig&t to be &eard and represented represe nted as a basic &u#an rig&t. " disagree *it& ono'an3s superior on t&e part *&ere &e asserted t&at t&e counsel3s defense for +bel s&ould end *it& ust one trial 8 one opportunit$ opportunit$ of defense, because t&is can be discri#inator discri#inator$ $ in t&e part of t&e client, *&o# at t&at ti#e, *as not e'en pro'en to be guilt$ of t&e alleged cri#e due to lac- of e'idence. %&e rig&t for due process s&ould be gi'en to eac& person not as piece#eal, but as a *&ole, because due process s&ould start fro# t&e beginning, up to t&e end, and does not ust end in t&e initial stage or in t&e first &earing. Eac& client #ust be represented to assert all of t&e rig&ts t&at #ust be put into consideration.
9&at reall$ ir-ed #e a#ong #an$ scenes in t&e #o'ie *as t&e part *&ere ono'an3s &ouse *as s&ot b$ un-no*n people *&o are against +bel and &is act of defending &i#. %&is " belie'e is unfair to t&e part of ono'an as &e *as si#pl$ doing &is ob, a ob &is fir# forced &i# to do. "t is unfair for all ot&er la*$ers, cri#inal la*$ers oftenti#es. %&e$ do not deser'e suc& -ind of treat#ent ust because t&e$ are defending t&e alleged guilt$ person. 9&et&er t&e person a la*$er is defending is t&e cri#inal or not, t&e la*$ers t&e#sel'es s&ould not &a'e to suffer an$ conseuences for defending t&e person as t&e$ are si#pl$ doing t&eir obs as la*$ers. "t is also an un#ista-able fact t&at all persons &a'e t&e rig&t to due process, so t&is applies to all -inds of people, *&et&er t&e$ #a$ be cri#inals, 'icti#s, and t&ose suffering in conflict. %&e la*$ers3 li'es s&ould not be in eopard$ as t&e$ are #erel$ doing t&eir obs *&ic& is to defend t&eir client. " also felt a*ful for +bel on t&e part *&en &e *as ust painting, left for t&e bat&roo#, t&en upon co#ing out, &is *&ole place *as sei5ed, all &is t&ings, &is dra*ers, e'er$t&ing *as forcibl$ ta-en &old of. 1e *as e'en repri#anded for allegedl$ refusing to co#pl$ *it& t&e orders. %&e *orst part is, t&is fact *as asserted b$ ono'an as &e spo-e to t&e udge, &o*e'er, t&e udge contended t&at t&e *arrantless searc& *as acceptable in t&is case because +bel *as a sp$ *&ose goal is to cause &ar# to t&e countr$. " personall$ disagree on t&is because t&e *arrantless sei5ure done, is against t&e la*. %&e la* states t&at e'idence found t&roug& *arrantless searc&es and sei5ures are inad#issible as e'idence, and t&erefore, t&at s&ould be follo*ed, as an$t&ing done ot&er*ise *ill result to a 'iolation of la*. "n t&is case, it &as not e'en been pro'en t&at +bel *as a sp$, $et t&e udge *as alread$ fa'oring &is con'iction and e'en positi'el$ enforcing a 'iolation of la* in ter#s of *arrantless searc&es ust to get it o'er *it&. espite -no*ing *ell enoug& t&at t&e *arrantless sei5ures and searc&es are against t&e la* and t&at t&e action done *as *rongl$ done to +bel *&ose rig&ts deser'ed to be asserted for ustice on &is part, &e did not care enoug& to e'en allo* ono'an to represent &i# on t&at #atter. + udge s&ould not &a'e bias in ter#s of *&ic& part$ &e fa'ors #ore on t&e case, nor s&ould &e allo* 'iolations of la*s because of &is personal biases. + udge s&ould see- for ustice to pre'ail.
