Dad on trial for manslaughter in death of 5-month-old son; accused of throwing baby in "moment's rage" (Bennington, Vermont)

Dad RUSS C. VAN VLECK has finally gone to trial in the death of his infant son. Daddy is accused of throwing the baby in a "moment's rage." Mom is totally omitted from the story. Why?

Actually, we've posted on this before. Turns out Daddy was babysitting. And even though the coroner ruled that the baby's death was a homicide, Daddy was able to plea this down to manslaughter.

INVISIBLE MOTHER ALERT

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/local/ci_19143066

Manslaughter trial of father in child’s death continues
Posted: 10/18/2011 10:47:35 PM EDT

Tuesday October 18, 2011

KEITH WHITCOMB JR.

Staff Writer

BENNINGTON -- The trial of a man accused of killing his 5-month-old son "in a moment’s rage," concluded its second day with motions by the defense regarding potential character witnesses and expert testimony.

Russ C. Van Vleck, 28, of Arlington, pleaded not guilty early last year to one count of manslaughter after the State Medical Examiner ruled the death of his son, Colin Van Vleck, was the result of a homicide. The state has accused Van Vleck of violently shaking or throwing the child against a soft object, causing internal injuries that killed him.

Bennington attorney William Wright, assisted by attorney Joyce Brenner, are arguing their client’s son died of a condition he had at birth that caused plates in his skull to fuse too early, leading to pressure on the brain and subsequent death.

Both the state and defense say the trial relies heavily on the testimony of medical experts. It’s been scheduled to last two weeks.

Judge David Howard, after the jury recessed for the day, heard arguments from Deputy State’s Attorney Christina Rainville and Wright on the admissibility of testimony related to Van Vleck’s character. Wright said some of his witnesses may testify that his client is not prone to reckless or careless behavior. He said the state hasn’t charged Van Vleck with a specific act, an issue he raised before the trial, and is charging him with a type of behavior. He said he must be allowed to defend that accusation.

Rainville said case law prohibits the defense from citing specific acts that speak to Van Vleck’s character, but they can find people in the community to speak two his general behavior and actions.

Brenner had argued about the state’s intention to call Dr. Karyn Patno, a Burlington pediatrician, saying what the state intends to have Patno testify on has been raised, or could be addressed, by other witnesses. She said the state is not allowed to simply put on multiple experts to strengthen their case through numbers.

Rainville said Patno will speak to specific aspects of the case not covered by other witnesses, such as Dr. Steven Shapiro, the State Medical Examiner who performed the Colin Van Vleck’s autopsy. She said the defense is also trying to make it so the state relies on witnesses the defense plans to attack as being unreliable because of the extent of their medical knowledge.

The jury spent Tuesday listening to the rest of Shapiro’s testimony, along with that of Dr. Bruce Tranmer, a neurosurgeon at Fletcher-Allen Medical Center. The doctor that oversaw the child’s birth at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, along with the nurses, were also called.