SerpApi.Org
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (Court TV) — A woman accused of plotting a murder-for-hire targeting her ex-husband will get a chance to see some of the text messages on the victim’s widow’s phone, a Florida judge has ruled.
Shanna Gardner appeared in court for a hearing on Oct. 30, 2024. (Court TV)
Shanna Gardner, 39, has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the death of her ex-husband, Microsoft executive Jared Bridegan. Prosecutors say Gardner conspired with her current husband, Mario Fernandez Saldana, to pay a third man to shoot and kill the victim while he was driving his youngest daughter home. All three defendants are facing separate trials, with Gardner’s scheduled to begin immediately after Fernandez Saldana’s ends; both are expected to begin next month.
Gardner’s lawyers had asked Judge London Kite to grant them a subpoena to extract Jared Bridegan’s widow’s phone, saying that they wanted to see communications she’d had with three witnesses, the State Attorney’s Office, law enforcement and the “Justice for Jared” social media pages. Prosecutors accused Gardner of going on a “fishing expedition” in their opposition to the request, citing Kirsten Bridegan’s increased privacy protections as the victim in the case under Florida law.
A witness in the case, identified in court documents as E.F., told a private investigator hired by Gardner’s defense that she was unwilling to speak with him without first getting Kirsten Bridegan’s permission. Gardner’s defense argued that the comment was evidence that the victim’s widow may be pressuring witnesses.
Kite agreed that the defendant had an interest in seeing communications between Kirsten Bridegan and E.F., but found that forensic imaging of the widow’s phone would violate her right to privacy. “There is no evidence, and the motion makes no allegation, that Ms. Bridegan has deleted, altered or threatened to destroy any communications with E.F.,” Kite wrote in her ruling. “Nothing in the record suggests Ms. Bridegan’s self-conducted search would be unreliable or incomplete, and the defense has identified no basis to conclude otherwise.”
While Kite was willing to compel Kirsten Bridegan to hand over all of her communications with E.F., she was unwilling to grant the rest of the defense’s requests without further evidence. Prosecutors have maintained that the defendant has failed to “set forth a legal and factual showing of materiality” for any other information, emphasizing that the defense’s requests span more than four years across four social media platforms.
Kite is planning to conduct an ex parte in camera hearing on July 27 — meaning it will be held without any members of the media present or allowed to attend — in which she will hear privileged matters relevant to the motion. A full record of the hearing will be created under seal and preserved for any potential appellate issues.
