Analysis: Did Lane have a dog's chance at trial?

Anthony Lane cross-examines a Meals on Wheels volunteer at his trial in Rochester District Court on Thursday. (Harrison Thorp photo)

“A person who represents himself has a fool for a client," Abraham Lincoln once said, and while Anthony Lane of Rochester is certainly no fool, he was, in fact, fighting an uphill battle trying to prove his innocence on animal cruelty charges Thursday in Rochester District Court.

Lane, 38, of Jamie Drive, Rochester, was charged last July with throwing his mother’s dog, Pepper, up against the wall after the dog had an “accident” on the floor. He was found guilty on Thursday during a bench trial in Rochester District Court.

Lane said all he did was pick the dog up, thump the floor and brush the 10-pound Pomeranian/Dachshund mix down the hall.

A Meals on Wheels volunteer, however, said she saw him toss the dog into the wall, causing it to yelp.

It should be noted that police at the time said the dog suffered no injury from the incident.

Lane was charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which includes no jail time, but can include a stiff fine. Because no jail time was possible, the state isn’t required to pay for a public defender.

Lane’s mother, who testified during the bench trial – which means the case was decided by a judge, not a jury – said she lied to the investigating officer when she told him her son had tossed the dog, because “she was mad at him that day.”

She testified in court that, in truth, the dog - named Pepper - had yelped when he picked her up, "because Pepper often did that."

During the trial Lane sought to show it was he who had often paid to take care of the dog and care for it, but the judge sustained a prosecutor’s objection that all the court was interested in was what happened the day of the incident.

But when the Meals on Wheels volunteer brought up the fact that after she took possession of Pepper she took it to the vet and “he recognized the dog” no objection was made by Lane.

Later in court testimony it was revealed that the dog had had an earlier injury when Lane said he had inadvertently stepped on it. Again, a defense lawyer would have objected.

If the court were only interested in what happened the day of the incident why was this relevant enough to be allowed as court testimony?

As soon as the defendant ruefully said the vet “recognized the dog” the remark seemed prejudicial to this writer.

It’s likely a lawyer would have nipped this line of testimony in the bud, instead of allowing it to flower poisonously.

Lane also tried to show by use of a sketch drawing how it was impossible for the Meals on Wheels volunteer to see any alleged “tossing” because the door was open and blocking her view of the defendant and the dog.

Lane said after the trial he intended to appeal.

A Rochester District Court clerk told Lane after he was found guilty on Thursday that the only appeal he could file would be to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which could view his case - not on its merits - but on issues of proper conduct by the court.

That sounds like a long shot.

However suppressing testimony supporting Lane’s caring for Pepper while allowing it to implicate him in previous injuries seems nebulous.

Lane was furious with the outcome of the trial, and vowed to fight the verdict, proclaiming his innocence since the beginning.

The operative question is: Is there a reasonable doubt that Lane is telling the truth?