JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The first hearing by an independent judge was held Thursday in the murder trial of Shanna Gardner and Mario Fernandez.
The two are facing first-degree murder charges in what investigators describe as a murder-for-hire plot to kill Gardner's ex-husband, Jared Bridegan. Bridegan was shot to death in Jacksonville Beach in 2022.
As the case moves toward trial, two issues need to be resolved before the criminal proceedings can continue: contested documents and the defense's motion to disqualify the State Attorney's Office Fourth Judicial Circuit.
It all centers around attorney-client privilege.
When the apple devices, iCloud and Google drives of Shanna Gardner and Mario Fernandez were seized last year as a part of the investigation, both had already retained lawyers. Both are pleading not guilty.
In court filings, the defense states it alerted the prosecution that there was attorney-client privileged communications on the devices. So the prosecution created a so called "taint team" to redact attorney-client privileged materials before investigators could review the information.
While there were items redacted, there are two documents in question that the prosecution says are admissible and the defense argues are privileged. Judge London Kite, who is assigned to this case, said since it potentially involves attorney-client privileged materials, she did not want to view them and an independent judge, the honorable Robert Foster, was appointed.
Thursday in court, he was given unredacted copies of the contested documents and all other materials that were originally redacted as privileged.
"Yours is the only unredacted copy for your total review," said Jesse Dreicer, Fernandez's defense attorney.
"We just want the opportunity to argue about two documents that the state believes are not attorney-client privileged, which the state has viewed," told Assistant State Attorney, Alan Mizrahi.
Judge Foster said he needs time to review it all.
"We are not arguing about the documents today, I have not even seen them," he told the court.
There is no timeline for when his decision will be made.
The defense has argued that the State Attorney's Office Fourth Judicial Circuit should be removed from the case due to how they handled the attorney-client privileged materials.
Arguments on that issue will be at a later date.