JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – After one of three people accused in the deadly ambush shooting of Jared Bridegan was convicted last month, the other two defendants will now be tried together and face fewer charges, according to court records.
Shanna Gardner, Bridegan’s ex-wife, and Henry Tenon, the accused gunman, will face trial together in May 2027, after prosecutors took their cases back to the grand jury.
Gardner, 39, was re-indicted on charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and Tenon, 65, was re-indicted on first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
The cases were also combined.
Three of Tenon’s charges — child abuse, conspiracy to commit murder and accessory after the fact — were dropped; and Gardner had two charges dropped: child abuse and solicitation to commit a capital felony.
After a week-long trial in August, Mario Fernandez, Gardner’s estranged husband, was found guilty of first-degree murder and solicitation to commit a capital felony in Bridegan’s killing.
Tenon is a former tenant at a property owned by Fernandez, and prosecutors have said that Gardner and Fernandez conspired together to hire him to kill Bridegan, after years of contentious custody disputes over the twins Gardner and Bridegan shared.
The twins were 9 years old when Bridegan was murdered on Feb. 16, 2022.
The father of four had stopped to move a tire that was blocking his way home after dropping off the twins with Gardner. Prosecutors say it was a ruse to get him out of the vehicle and that Tenon’s DNA was found on that tire.
The child abuse charge all three defendants once faced had stemmed from the fact that Bridegan’s toddler daughter was with him when he was gunned down and was narrowly missed by a bullet while she was strapped in her car seat.
Prosecutors had initially planned to try Gardner immediately after Fernandez, but new child sex charges filed against Fernandez the day after his conviction forced a delay.
Because the charges have the potential to alter Gardner’s defense strategy, both the state and defense agreed the trial should be postponed.
Judge London Kite set the new trial date for next year, with jury selection to begin on May 3, 2027, and three weeks of trial scheduled to start May 10, 2027.
RELATED: Jury convicts Mario Fernandez of murder in February 2022 ambush shooting of Jared Bridegan, his wife’s ex-husband | ‘Truth won today,’ says Jared Bridegan’s widow after Mario Fernandez convicted of murder in 2022 shooting
Gardner defense motions
During his trial, Fernandez’s defense opted to concede that Tenon is the man captured on video in Jacksonville Beach leaving the scene of the ambush shooting on foot.
It seems Gardner’s defense will take a different approach.
Among about a dozen defense motions that Kite must rule on before trial, Gardner’s attorneys are requesting that the state not be allowed to call a truck in surveillance footage “Tenon’s truck” or identify people in the footage as Henry Tenon.
The defense argues the images are unclear and those disputed identifications should be decided by the jury, not assumed by witnesses or prosecutors.
Defense attorneys also want Kite to block a detective from testifying that Tenon’s walk matched the shooter’s. It argues the detective lacks proper expertise, the method is unreliable and the side-by-side video is misleading.
Other defense motions that must still be decided are:
Autopsy/scene photos: A request to exclude graphic photographs of Jared Bridegan, arguing they are unnecessary because Gardner does not dispute that he was killed and was not allegedly present or the shooter.
Burden shifting: A motion to bar the prosecution from arguing, “If Gardner didn’t do it, who did?” or that no one else had a motive. The defense says the state must prove Gardner’s guilt and she need not identify another suspect.
Discovery: A request to force prosecutors to turn over statements and communications involving Kirsten Bridegan, Detective Christopher Johns, and prosecutors—including relevant texts, emails, social-media directions and call records.
Second phone: A motion to exclude evidence that Gardner obtained another phone on her lawyer’s advice, arguing it could reflect privacy concerns—not guilt. Alternatively, prohibit calling it a “burner phone” and require a limiting instruction.
“Burner phone” and “dry run” language: A request to stop prosecutors from using those terms, arguing they imply criminal intent and unfairly prejudice the jury. It asks the state to use neutral descriptions instead.
Marital communications: A motion to exclude private conversations between Gardner and Fernandez, who is still her husband, legally. It argues the conversations are protected by marital privilege and that presenting only Gardner’s side would mislead the jury.
Missing Ring-camera footage: A request to prevent the state from suggesting Gardner deleted or hid Ring footage. It argues there is no evidence that footage existed or that Gardner caused it to disappear, and that technical problems could explain its absence.
Co-conspirator statements: A motion to require prosecutors to identify, before trial, every out-of-court statement they plan to use under the co-conspirator hearsay exception. It also wants the state to explain the independent evidence supporting each statement so the defense can challenge them.
Susan Lee’s testimony: A request for witness Susan Lee to testify by Zoom using typed answers because a speech impediment makes oral communication difficult, especially under stress. She would remain under oath and subject to cross-examination.
Subpoena for widow’s phone
Gardner’s defense team has been seeking private messages and other information from Kirsten Bridegan’s phone and social media accounts that attorneys said could be relevant to Gardner’s defense.
Bridegan, a potential prosecution witness, has opposed the request.
In a statement to News4JAX, Gardner’s defense team said it is not seeking direct access to Kirsten Bridegan’s phone.
“The defense is not asking for Kirsten Bridegan’s phone,” the statement said. “The judge ordered her to turn over specific communications with A.B., L.B., lead Detective Christopher Johns and the prosecutors assigned to the case, including the State Attorney. Those communications go to the judge, not the defense.”
The statement questioned why Bridegan and prosecutors are opposing a judicial review of the communications.
“Why are Kirsten Bridegan and the State fighting to keep these communications secret?” the defense said. “What are they afraid these communications will show?”
Those statements reflect the defense’s position.
Kirsten Bridegan’s attorney, Douglas Clifton, on the other hand, has argued that the subpoena from the defense seeks highly private information and violates protections under Florida’s victims’ rights law, commonly known as Marsy’s Law.
Clifton has said a forensic examination of the phone could expose unrelated personal information and potentially reveal confidential details about Bridegan and her family. He has characterized the defense request as an overly broad fishing expedition.
Heated back-and-forth
Kite previously ordered Bridegan to turn over her cellphone by 9 a.m. Aug. 21. and denied Bridegan’s request to stay the cellphone order shortly before the deadline.
Kite said she had reviewed a sealed submission from Gardner’s attorneys and found that some requested information had potential evidentiary value.
She said her order limited the scope of any disclosure and required the court to review the communications before anything could be provided to the defense.
But when Bridegan did not turn over the phone by the deadline, Kite interrupted the Fernandez trial and held an emergency hearing. Gardner’s attorneys then asked the judge to begin contempt proceedings against Bridegan.
Kite scheduled a contempt hearing for later that day. Before it could take place, the Fifth District Court of Appeal imposed a stay, which prevents enforcement of the phone order while it considers Bridegan’s petition.
The appellate court confirmed Sept. 2 that the stay will remain in place through the final disposition of the petition.
Prosecutor communications
Gardner’s defense team has also asked Kite to enforce another order requiring the state to search for communications involving Kirsten Bridegan; Detective Christopher Johns, the lead investigator in Jared Bridegan’s death; and prosecutors.
In a motion filed Sept. 10, Gardner’s attorneys argue that prosecutors still have not complied with an Aug. 11 order from Kite requiring them to determine whether communications involving Kirsten Bridegan and Johns — along with Assistant State Attorneys Christina Stifler and Alan Mizrahi, and State Attorney Melissa Nelson — exist in the state’s “possession, custody or control.”
The defense argues the state improperly answered only whether it had Johns’ messages — not whether it had access to them through him — and gave no details about its search of the prosecutors’ communications.
The defense says the state acknowledged that communications involving the prosecutors exist but provided only a general statement that they had been searched for exculpatory or impeachment information.
The defense says prosecutors have produced no messages, documents or other communications to Gardner’s attorneys.
The motion asks Kite to order the state to collect and search Johns’ communications with Kirsten Bridegan and submit all responsive communications — along with the results of the state’s searches — to the court for private, or in-camera, review.
The judge would decide whether any material is relevant and should be disclosed to the defense.
The defense argues the communications could contain evidence about witness bias, credibility or the shaping of testimony.
Kirsten Bridegan is expected to be a key prosecution witness. Evidence that could be used to challenge a witness’ credibility generally falls under prosecutors’ obligations to disclose favorable evidence under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, the motion says.
The motion does not establish that prosecutors violated their disclosure obligations. It asks Kite to require further searches and independently review the communications before deciding whether any must be disclosed.
Judge declines to step aside
The dispute over Kirsten’s phone led prosecutors and Kirsten Bridegan to separately ask Kite to step aside from Gardner’s case. They argued the judge’s handling of the phone subpoena and the proposed contempt hearing created a reasonable fear that future proceedings involving Kirsten Bridegan would not be fair.
Bridegan’s motion argued that Kite had appeared to prejudge whether Kirsten Bridegan should be held in criminal contempt. She cited the short deadline to surrender the phone, the judge’s refusal to wait for an appellate ruling and the decision to schedule a same-day contempt hearing.
The State’s motion said Kite’s words and conduct created the appearance that matters involving Kirsten Bridegan had been prejudged.
Prosecutors pointed to the rapid sequence of events, the interruption of Fernandez’s trial and the limited time Bridegan was given to prepare for the proposed contempt hearing.
The State said it was not seeking Kite’s removal simply because she had ruled against Bridegan. Instead, prosecutors argued that the combined circumstances created a reasonable fear that future proceedings involving Kirsten Bridegan would not be fair and impartial.
Kite denied both recusal motions, saying they were legally insufficient. Her ruling did not resolve whether Bridegan ultimately must surrender her phone or whether she could face contempt proceedings.
Copyright 2026 by WJXT News4JAX – All rights reserved.