The defence was also entitled to all the evidence that the prosecution would be offering and that included an interview with the prosecution’s “mystery man”—Reino Hayhanen. At the interview with the defence lawyers Hayhanen quoted, and insisted on sticking to, his legal rights not to talk until the trial.
The hearing of the motion submitted by the defence was to reveal the main thrust of the case against Abel, but when it came to identification of the items from the hotel room that the defence wanted excluded, Judge Byers had been irritated by both sides’ fencing in their approach. When Donovan asked a prosecution witness, “And did you find any documentary evidence of his status as an alien?”, prosecution counsel interrupted, “I think he should just ask what was found in the hotel room.”
Judge Byers: “I agree.” He looked at Donovan. “The witness doesn’t need to give his opinion as to the nature of the papers in the evidentiary sense. Ask him what he found.”
“Your honour, this is extremely important.”
Judge Byers shrugged, his irritation all too obvious.
“All right, don’t ask him what he found. I am telling you what I would like to have you do. Of course, you can disregard my instructions: I realise that.”
Donovan turned again to the witness. “What did you find in the room that confirmed the information that the FBI had given you?”
Judge Byers intervened. “The witness does not need to characterise the probative nature of the documents.”
“Agreed, Your Honour, but he did make the statement.”
“I know you like to argue, we all like to argue. Will you just move along.”
Donovan tried to put the question to the witness again and Judge Byers cut him off. “I am not going to listen to the witness’s opinion as to what those documents show. Now take that from me.”
Eventually Donovan argued that the arrest was not made in good faith and that the search and seizure were illegal.
Judge Byers told him bluntly that it was not part of the court’s duty to tell the FBI how they should function.
On October 11, Donovan’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied. The case could go to trial.
One of the strange features behind the legal wrangling was that Abel was liked, and in some cases admired, by all those who came in contact with him. Prisoners, officials and lawyers found him both mild in manner and extremely intelligent. Their reaction to the man accused of being a Soviet spy was much the same as his friends and neighbours at the Ovington Building.
Tomkins, the prosecutor, was happy about the evidence but was worried about how Reino Hayhanen would react under interrogation and coming face to face with Abel and identifying him as a Soviet spy. But Tomkins made his opening speech to the jury with confidence and authority.
Later he listened to Donovan’s speech for the defence and it confirmed his expectation that Donovan would try to discredit Hayhanen’s evidence. He closed his eyes and listened intently as Donovan stated the defence case.
“The defendant is a man, a man named Abel,” Donovan said. “It is important that you keep that fact uppermost in your mind throughout the days to come. This is not a case against Communism. It is not a case against Soviet Russia. Our grievances against Russia have been voiced every day in the United Nations and other forums. But the sole issues in this case … whether or not Abel has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the specific crimes with which he is now charged.”
Half an hour later Tomkins was listening intently as Donovan started his attack on Hayhanen.
“The prosecution has told you that among the principal witnesses against the defendant will be a man whose name is Hayhanen, who claims that he helped the defendant to spy against the United States … I want you to observe his demeanour very carefully when he takes the stand.
“Bear in mind that if what the government says is true, it means that this man has been here for some years, living among us, spying on behalf of Soviet Russia … It means that he entered the United States on false papers … that he has lived here every day only by lying about his true identity, about his background, about every fact of his everyday life … He was trained in the art of deception … He was trained to lie. In short, assuming that what the government say is true, this man is a professional liar.”
Some observers thought it was odd that neither the prosecution nor the media pointed out that every word of Donovan’s derogatory references to Hayhanen applied equally to Rudolph Abel. Tomkins was saving the point for a more effective stage in the proceedings.
When Hayhanen took the stand the courtroom and the media listened to the details of “drops” and secret signs in places they knew well. It was an amalgam of every spy story they had read and every spy film they had seen. A lamp-post in Riverside Park at 74th Street, another lamp-post near 80th Street. A cinema in Flushing. Drawing-pins in the slat of a park bench. Mail boxes on Central Park West in the upper 70s used for magnetic containers, others on every street corner between 74th and 79th Streets. A fence around the Museum of Natural History and a “drop” at a 95th Street subway station. Meetings and journeys with Abel. Abortive attempts to trace and contact American citizens named by Moscow as potential collaborators.
Then followed descriptions of meetings or conversations with Abel about his links with Americans already serving prison
