JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (Court TV) — A judge overseeing the trials of several defendants charged with the murder-for-hire of a Microsoft executive has refused to recuse herself from the case, despite the requests of both prosecutors and the victim’s widow.
Shanna Gardner appears in court for a motions hearing on July 13, 2026. (Court TV)
Mario Fernandez Saldana was the first defendant to stand trial for the murder of Jared Bridegan, who was shot and killed while driving home one night in 2022. Bridegan had previously been married to Fernandez’s wife, Shanna Gardner, and the two shared custody of twins. Bridegan was killed after dropping the children off at the home Fernandez and Gardner shared.
During Fernandez’s trial in August, Gardner’s defense attorneys continued to try to get access to the phone belonging to the victim’s widow, Kirsten Bridegan. Gardner’s attorneys said that they believed Kirsten Bridegan had contact with other witnesses in the case, as well as prosecutors, and urged Judge London Kite to order the widow to turn over her phone.
Both prosecutors and Kirsten Bridegan opposed the request and, at a series of hearings, argued that she was legally a victim in the case and should not be subject to inquiry. Kite initially denied the request, but later ordered Kirsten Bridegan to surrender her phone following an ex parte meeting with Gardner’s attorneys. Neither prosecutors nor Kirsten Bridegan and her attorneys were permitted to attend that meeting.
Kirsten Bridegan testifies on Aug. 17, 2026. (Court TV)
“Judge Kite has denied Mrs. Bridegan any opportunity to review (and thus to respond to) the material Defendant Gardner apparently characterized as supporting that decision, notwithstanding the clear risk that the ex parte procedure Judge Kite employed risked an accurate and unrebutted factual premise that would directly affect Mrs. Bridegan’s rights,” Kirsten Bridegan’s attorney wrote in a motion asking for Kite to disqualify herself from future proceedings.
Kirsten Bridegan’s attorneys accused Kite of prejudging her when Kirsten Bridegan asked for a stay of the order to hand over her phone while the Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed the case. When Kirsten Bridegan failed to turn over the phone as directed, Kite held a show-cause hearing — pausing Fernandez’s trial to do so — and threatened to hold Kirsten Bridegan in criminal contempt. Kirsten Bridegan’s attorneys argued in their motion for disqualification that Kite’s threat was inappropriate and that the judge should have first initiated civil contempt before threatening criminal contempt.
Kite denied Kirsten Bridegan’s motion, finding it “legally insufficient,” but did say that she would abide by the stay imposed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal and would conduct no further proceedings until the appellate court issued its order.
Prosecutors then filed their own motion asking Kite to disqualify herself from Gardner’s trial. “The State has a well-formed and objectively reasonable fear that it will not receive fair and impartial consideration in Defendant’s trial or in any further proceedings in this case because the Court’s words and conduct…created the appearance that matters involving Kirsten Bridegan, a material prosecution witness and constitutional crime victim, had been prejudged,” prosecutors wrote. “The appearance of prejudgment is not confined to the contempt proceeding; it directly affects the State’s prosecution. Mrs. Bridegan is a material State witness whose credibility, communications, alleged bias and constitutional rights will remain recurring subjects of litigation before and during Defendant’s trial. The Court’s treatment of Mrs. Bridegan therefore bears directly on whether the State can reasonably expect those matters to receive neutral consideration.”
Kite similarly denied the prosecution’s motion, finding it “legally insufficient.”
Gardner’s trial, initially scheduled to begin in August, is now scheduled to begin in 2027.
