Diksha Sundriyal
In 2018’s ‘Trial by Fire,’ Jack O’Connell plays the role of Cameron Todd Willingham, who is put on death row for setting his house on fire with his three daughters inside it. As the evidence mounts against him, everyone is convinced that he is guilty of the crime. What really tips the scales against his favor is the revelation that his own lawyer, David Horton, believes he is guilty. Later, an insight into the trial suggests that Horton’s bias may have prevented him from properly representing his client, which may or may not have been behind the guilty verdict. The film presents a somewhat simplistic version of events. In real life, however, things were a bit different. SPOILERS AHEAD.
David Horton is Loosely Inspired by Cameron Todd’s Lawyers
A lot of what we see in ‘Trial by Fire’ is based on real events. At the same time, there is also enough fiction in the movie to keep the plot engaging, which is where the character of David Horton comes into the picture. In real life, there is no lawyer of such name who represented Cameron Todd. Instead, two lawyers, David Martin and Robert Dunn, were appointed to represent him when he couldn’t hire his own. Much like in the film, the lawyers seemed certain of their client’s guilt, but in real life, they weren’t half as incompetent as the film presents David Horton to be.
Both Martin and Dunn were extremely experienced lawyers, and this wasn’t their first time representing someone accused of capital murder. Before he turned to law, Martin was a state trooper. Dunn, on the other hand, had spent his entire life representing people from all walks of life and handling all sorts of cases, not just the criminal ones. When they saw the evidence against their client, they knew that he was guilty, and there was only so much they could do for him. When a deal was put on the table by the prosecutor, the defense lawyers advised Cameron Todd to take it. If he accepted his guilt, he would receive only a life sentence. However, if he went to trial and was found guilty, there would be a death sentence waiting for him. The client refused the deal, and the case went to trial.
Cameron Todd’s Defense Was Criticised for Its Handling of the Case
One of the major points in the prosecution’s case against Cameron Todd was the expert testimony that revealed that the fire had, in fact, been set intentionally. Curiously for the public, the defense never presented their own expert to counter this argument, and that’s because the one they hired came to the same conclusion. According to David Martin, they hired a fire expert, but whatever hopes they may have had about their client’s innocence were dashed when their expert reiterated the analysis presented by the prosecutor’s expert.
Another thing that the defense has been criticized for is the lack of witnesses from their end. While the prosecution brought a legion of witnesses who testified against Cameron Todd, his defense only presented two. The first was the babysitter, who said that an oil lamp in the hallway of the Willingham household may have been the reason for the fire. The second witness was a prisoner who claimed that the testimony given by Cameron Todd’s cellmate, Johnny Webb, was a lie. However, it was considered hearsay and did not hold any authority in court.
While Robert Dunn didn’t talk in public about the case and his thoughts on his client’s innocence, Martin spoke openly about his belief in Cameron Todd’s guilt. On the criticism regarding his approach during the trial, he said that the man was “obviously guilty” and that it was a “travesty to make it seem like it was something other than what it was.” He denied all allegations of an unfair trial and stated that his client was guilty beyond doubt and that he deserved the sentence he got. The movie takes some creative liberties while presenting all these aspects, making the defense lawyer a thin representation of real-life lawyers.
Read More: Trial By Fire: Is Daniels Based on a Real Prison Guard?
