There was never any doubt Michael Gaudiani would try to accuse the victim of provoking the wee-hours stabbing that marred a New Year’s celebration at a popular island establishment.
No one, then, should have been surprised this summer when Gaudiani invoked Florida’s flawed “stand your ground” law in an attempt to convince a local judge to dismiss the misdemeanor battery charge he faces for his role in the disturbing bar-room attack at Grind and Grape.
The judge, however, didn’t buy Gaudiani’s blatantly one-sided version of the chain of events that led to his father stabbing an unsuspecting victim, Mason Haynes, in the back.
Instead, County Judge Robyn Stone rejected Gaudiani’s claim that he was legally justified in physically engaging with Haynes, finding the testimony of the victim and two other witnesses to be more credible – especially after reviewing surveillance video, which provides a birds-eye view of the incident.
In her written order denying Gaudiani’s motion, in fact, Stone stated that the stand-your-ground defense didn’t apply to the altercation because the “totality of the evidence” showed Haynes did not pose an “imminent threat” to Gaudiani or his father.
Other than Gaudiani’s spotty-at-best testimony, which was never corroborated, no evidence was presented at the July hearing to support his allegation that Haynes had threatened him or his father, or was ever the aggressor in their exchanges.
To the contrary, Stone wrote, the video evidence showed that Gaudiani made physical contact with Haynes three times:
- First, placing his hand on Haynes’ chest and “appearing to push” him backwards.
- Later, putting his hand around Haynes’ neck.
- Finally, grabbing Haynes and bending him over, twisting the victim into a position where his shirt was slightly pulled up and his back was exposed.
It was during the last encounter – while Gaudiani was tussling with Haynes – that Gaudiani’s father struck Haynes in the back “with his right hand in a downward motion,” Stone wrote.
The blow resulted in Haynes’ kidney being “punctured,” the judge added, though she made no reference to the still-unidentified weapon that was used in the attack, which resembled a prison shanking.
Somehow, the Gaudianis managed to leave the crowded bar before Vero Beach police arrived at the scene. But the father, now 67 and also named Michael, was arrested at his Riomar home within an hour of the stabbing.
Charged with “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon” – a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine – the elder Gaudiani was released from jail on Jan. 2 after posting a $100,000 bond.
His son, now 31, wasn’t arrested until four days after the stabbing. He was charged with a first-degree misdemeanor and, if convicted, he faces up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Vero Beach attorney Andrew Metcalf, who represents both Gaudianis, said last week Stone’s ruling would have no impact on the father’s case. He was quick to add, however, that it was “too soon” to say whether he would attempt to use the stand-your-ground defense to get the felony charge dismissed.
“Different charge, different claim, different judge,” Metcalf said of the father’s case, which is scheduled to return to court in December. “Besides, there are still depositions to be taken before we make that decision.”
Gaudiani, meanwhile, has returned to Michigan, where he is a Harvard University-educated orthopedic surgeon who Metcalf said has “never stopped working.” Metcalf said he didn’t know if or how the battery charge – or any potential conviction – could affect his client’s medical license.
“Right now, it’s not affecting it, but that’s beyond my scope,” the lawyer said. “It would be a shame if that were to happen, though.”
Gaudiani’s next court date is Sept. 25.
Asked if prosecutors had approached him with a plea deal or offered Gaudiani an opportunity to enter a diversion program – which typically includes a period of probation, community-service hours and other sanctions that would result in the charge being dismissed when satisfied – Metcalf declined to comment.
He said Gaudiani could appeal Stone’s ruling, but, as of last week, he was preparing to move forward with a trial, where he could again try to invoke the stand-your-ground defense.
“You can bring up the same defense at trial,” he said, “and let a jury decide the issue.”
The stabbing, which occurred at roughly 2 a.m. on Jan. 1, was the result of a dispute over a table near the establishment’s entrance, where two sisters, Oriana and Deborah Duarte, were seated.
Court records state that Haynes testified he met the two women and was socializing with them when he noticed the Gaudiani family walk in. He said the Gaudianis “clearly wanted the table, and they exhibited aggressive and invasive body language.”
In response, Haynes said, he informed the family that he was using the table, but that they could have it when he and the women were done, which apparently frustrated Gaudiani and his father.
Their hostility escalated when the women left to use the restroom, leaving Haynes to save the table. At some point, Gaudiani’s father confronted him and became increasingly agitated during their conversation.
According to court records, the Duarte sisters corroborated Haynes’ testimony that he never threatened or physically assaulted either of the Gaudianis and did nothing to instigate a confrontation.
Gaudiani, as you might expect, told a noticeably different story, which is detailed in Stone’s order.
He claimed Haynes was “leering at him and his family” and said to them, “Do you have a (expletive) problem with me?” At some point, he said his father and Haynes were “nose to nose,” and that Haynes made verbal threats.
“I’ll (expletive) kill you,” Gaudiani claimed Haynes said to his father. “I’ll beat your (butt), old man.”
Gaudiani testified neither he nor his father verbally threatened Haynes, and that his father did not move forward to initiate a face-to-face confrontation. He also said he had no ill intent when he put his hand around Haynes’ neck – that he did so “in a friendly manner,” merely to try to ascertain why he was angry.
But while Gaudiani confidently recalled those details, as well as Haynes being “incredibly intoxicated and incredibly aggressive,” he undermined his own testimony, which included too many instances in which he was unable to provide other details that might not have helped his cause.
And the judge noticed.
“This court has also applied its own common sense and observed the demeanor of the witnesses that testified,” Stone wrote in her 12-page order, “as well as what the witnesses did not testify to and what they appeared to conveniently ‘not recall.’”
The testimony, though, was little more than a soundtrack for a video that provided the answers to Stone’s questions about the Gaudianis’ role in the attack, which was as vicious as it was unnecessary and sent Haynes to the hospital.
The final 10-second clip of the surveillance video – the footage of the stabbing – shows Gaudiani’s father and Haynes standing chest-to-chest when Gaudiani intervened.
Gaudiani can be seen grabbing Haynes and bending him over, placing him in a vulnerable position. Gaudiani’s father, who appears to be holding something in his right hand, then seizes the opportunity to step towards Haynes and, in a most cowardly manner, violently jab some type of weapon into Haynes’ exposed back.
Haynes, now 27, didn’t realize he had been stabbed until he was outside the bar, where other patrons noticed he was bleeding profusely.
By then, the Gaudianis were gone, obviously not knowing their actions had been recorded on a video that would be used in court.
The video clearly shows Gaudiani wasn’t cornered. He had ample opportunity to walk away and take his father with him. He didn’t need to get physical with Haynes, regardless of what was said.
That same clip offers no compelling reason for Gaudiani’s father to stab Haynes, who already had been subdued by his son.
As Stone wrote in her order: The stand-your-ground law authorizes the use of non-deadly force when a defendant reasonably believes such force is necessary to defend himself or herself against another’s imminent use of force.
“To justify the use of deadly force under Stand Your Ground law,” she continued, “the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.”
Absent any audio recordings to accompany the surveillance video, Stone wrote that she relied on the witnesses’ testimony to determine what threats, if any, were made at the time of Gaudiani’s use of force.
Stone then needed to weigh the credibility of the testimony in conjunction with what she saw in the video.
She did.
