Filing # 201090784 E-Filed 06/21/2024 02:36:06 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 16-2023-CF-002862B

DIVISION: CR-B
v.
HON. JUDGE. LONDON M. KITE
SHANNA LEE GARDNER,

Defendant.
_____________________________/

DEFENSE MOTION TO RELEASE DEFENDANT ON BOND, TO PROHIBIT THE

STATE FROM USING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BASED ON STATE’S
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FAVORABLE EVIDENCE, AND FOR OTHER RELIEF

COMES NOW, the Defendant, SHANNA LEE GARDNER, by and through her
undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220, Article I, §9 and §22 of the
Constitution of the State of Florida, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the inherent authority of this Honorable
Court, by which statutes, rule, and other authority, and hereby moves this Honorable Court relief
based on State’s cumulative discovery failures in this case and its failure to disclose favorable
evidence to the Defense while capitalizing on such failure during the May 17, 2024 Arthur
hearing. In support of this Motion, Ms. Gardner states as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Shanna Gardner stands before the Court charged by Indictment for several counts to
include the offense of First-Degree Murder, §782.04(1)(a) and §775.087(1) Fla. Stat.
(Capital Felony), for which the State has filed a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death
Penalty. Ms. Gardner was indicted on August 17, 2023 and arrested that same day in
West Richland, Washington.

2. On November 1, 2023, the Defense filed its Demand for Discovery pursuant to Fla. R.
Crim. P. 3.220. Ms. Gardner first appeared before this Court on November 3, 2023. The
State provided its Discovery Exhibit on November 9, 2023. There have been, and
continue to be, logistical issues related to the disclosure of discovery by the State to the
Defense. Despite this, the State has disclosed enormous amounts of data to the Defense.
These materials include voluminous reports; data from phones and computers;
surveillance video; pole camera video; financial records; and call recordings.

3. The State disclosed certain incriminating statements alleged to have been made by Ms.
Gardner in its exhibit. The State informed the Defense that many of these statements
were contained in Kim Jensen’s grand jury testimony. The State agreed to unsealing the
testimony, and the Court issued an order doing so on December 1, 2023.

ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 06/21/2024 03:57:32 PM

4. The State made certain Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(b)(4) disclosures in its discovery exhibit
related to Henry Tenon. The State made no similar disclosures related to Kim Jensen.

5. The Defense received Kim Jensen’s grand jury testimony on January 22, 2024 (the court
reporter was unavailable to transcribe the testimony over the holiday season). The
prosecutors present at the grand jury were ASA Alan Mizrahi and ASA Christina Stifler,
the very same prosecutors representing the State before the Court. Upon reviewing the
transcript, the Defense identified many statements by Kim Jensen that tended to negate
the guilt of Ms. Gardner and undermine the credibility of Ms. Jensen as a State witness.
This included, for example, that Ms. Jensen told the State that she had a stroke a few
years ago and that she “often jumble[s] timelines and facts, and sometimes it’s hard for
[her] to remember.” This was in addition to repeated assertions that neither she nor Ms.
Gardner had knowledge of or involvement in the murder of Jared Bridegan. These
statements were never disclosed to the Defense pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(b)(4),
though the Defense did find them through due diligence.

6. On February 5, 2024, the Defense filed a Motion to Set Bond. On February 15, 2024, the
Defense filed a Motion to Schedule an Evidentiary Hearing and Memorandum of Law in
support of the request for an Arthur hearing. The Court delayed hearing the Motion to
Set Bond until the Court resolved the Motion to Disqualify the Office of the State
Attorney and to Dismiss the Indictment. The Court denied the disqualification motion on
May 13, 2024 and set the Arthur hearing for May 15, 2024.

7. On May 14, 2024, in the afternoon, the parties exchanged draft evidence lists. It was
after reviewing the State’s evidence list that the Defense first heard the name “Susan
Lee.” Ms. Lee was not listed as a witness on the State’s discovery exhibit. The Defense
also became aware that the State only intended to call Detective Christopher Johns, the
lead detective in the case, at the hearing.

8. On May 15, 2024, the Court held the Arthur hearing. At the start of the hearing, the
Defense became aware that the State would be using a PowerPoint to present the
testimony of Detective Johns. The PowerPoint included alleged oral statements, not
memorialized anywhere, made by Ms. Gardner to Ms. Jenson, though similar statements
were disclosed by the State in its discovery exhibit. The State also admitted several text
message strings between Ms. Gardner and Ms. Jensen. The State elicited no testimony
regarding Ms. Jensen’s prior statements regarding her memory and recall issues, or her
assertions that Ms. Gardner had no involvement in the case, and, as will be explained
below, specific exculpatory statements made in response to the very text messages and
alleged oral statements used by the State.

9. During his direct examination, Detective Johns advised the Court that he had reviewed
text messages between Ms. Jensen and Ms. Lee wherein the two discussed potential
suitors to carry out the murder of Jared Bridegan at Ms. Gardner’s direction. Referring to
State’s Composite Exhibit 9, Detective Johns testified on direct that Ms. Jensen had

2
 reached out to Ms. Lee to see if Ms. Lee’s husband knew of anyone who could carry out
the murder.

10. When asked if he had ever spoken to Ms. Lee during cross-examination, Detective Johns
stated, “I believe one of my colleagues did.” However, Detective Johns could not recall
which officer and admitted that he had not read a report evidencing that an officer had
actually done so. Arthur Hearing Tr. at p. 109. Subsequent thereto, Detective Johns
changed course and testified that at the time he tried locating Ms. Lee, “her phone
number had changed and we didn’t have a good address for her so we were not able to
contact her at the time during the messages.” Arthur Hearing Tr. at p. 109-110.

11. While watching the Arthur hearing via internet coverage, Ms. Lee became so outraged by
the misrepresentations made by the State that she reached out to an attorney who
subsequently contacted the Defense. Ms. Lee provided a statement that confirms she did
in fact speak with Detective Johns; that she has had the same phone number since 2014;
and, that her exchange with Ms. Jensen was part of a larger ongoing joke regarding racist
statements made by a former boss about her African American husband.

12. Ms. Jensen was similarly outraged by the unfair portrayal of the text messages and the
failure of the State to accurately relay her explanations of the context of the text messages
between her and Ms. Gardner as she watched the Arthur hearing online. She similarly
has now retained counsel and reported to the Defense that she did not make certain oral
statements presented by the State; that certain exculpatory statements were omitted by the
State; and that the circumstances of a July 2023 custodial interrogation of her by the State
were inaccurately represented.

13. Ms. Jenson has informed the Defense that Detective Johns followed and approached her
at a local supermarket with at least three other members of law enforcement and served
her with a subpoena without a date on it.1 Detective Johns then told Ms. Jensen that he
would transport her to the State Attorney’s Office to comply with the subpoena. There
was an exchange after which Detective Johns conceded that he could not detain her.
After advising that she would drive herself, Detective Johns and the other law
enforcement, in two vehicles, boxed-in Ms. Jensen as she drove to the State Attorney’s
Office. Upon arrival, Ms. Jensen was escorted to a conference room filled with photos of
the her, Mr. Tenon, Mr. Fernandez, and Ms. Gardner and posters of text messages
between herself and Ms. Gardner. At this point, Ms. Jensen was left alone in the room
for an extended period of time. At some point thereafter, ASA Stiffler and ASA Mizrahi
entered the conference room without any law enforcement. ASA Mizrahi told Ms. Jensen
that she was an accomplice to the murder and threatened her with an arrest. At some
point after, law enforcement entered the room. Ms. Jensen repeatedly stated that the text
messages were taken out of context and that they were made in jest and were not to be
taken literally. At the end of the meeting, ASA Mizrahi instructed Ms. Jensen to never
discuss her law enforcement interviews with anyone not even her spouse.

1 The Defense has not yet found this subpoena in discovery.

3
 14. In addition to omitting the material information regarding Ms. Lee and Ms. Jensen,
Detective Johns misled the Court regarding Ms. Gardner’s knowledge of Mr. Tenon’s
blue truck that was allegedly driven during the murder. Arthur Hearing Tr. at p. 60-61.
Because reports were turned over in discovery – reports that Detective Johns claimed he
had not read as the lead detective – Detective Johns was impeached regarding his
material misstatements about Ms. Gardner’s knowledge about Mr. Tenon’s blue truck
following Mr. Tenon’s arrest in August 2022, before Mr. Tenon’s association with the
truck was made public. Arthur Hearing Tr. at 143-150. It is clear based on the reports
and records that Mr. Tenon’s roommate was informed by police the morning that Mr.
Tenon was arrested that Mr. Tenon’s truck was used in the murder of Mr. Bridegan; that
the roommate called Mr. Fernandez shortly after detectives left; and that Mr. Fernandez
contacted Ms. Gardner after speaking to the roommate and before she made any
statements to anyone about knowledge of Mr. Tenon’s truck.

15. On May 24, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting State’s Motion for Pretrial
Detention and Denying Defendant’s Motion to Set Bond. The Court reasoned its finding
that Defendant’s guilt is evident, or the presumption is great, based on “evidence in the
form of statements made to Detective Johns, financial records, and Defendant’s text
messages that support her guilt ….” Order at p. 8.

16. In the Order, the Court also made factual findings, the majority of which were related to
statements allegedly made by the Defendant to Ms. Jensen. The Court asserts that these
comments “were the overt actions occurring over multiple years” and were not just
“tongue-in-cheek comments a person makes out of frustration.” Order at p. 6.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(b)(4) provides:

As soon as practicable after the filing of the charging document the prosecutor
shall disclose to the defendant any material information within the State’s
possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any
offense charged, regardless of whether the defendant has incurred reciprocal
discovery obligations.

This rule is based on established case law that is violation of a defendant’s due process rights
under the Florida and United States constitutions for the state to withhold favorable evidence.
See, e.g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 86 (1963). Impeachment evidence falls within this
concept, for if it was disclosed, it could make the difference between conviction and acquittal.
See, e.g., Giglio v. United States¸ 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Evidence is considered withheld by the
state where a police agency, even without knowledge of the specific prosecutor, withholds
favorable evidence. See, e.g., Garcia v. State, 622 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1993).

The United States Supreme Court has expressed its motivation behind Brady:

4
 By requiring the prosecutor to assist the defense in making its case, the Brady rule
represents a limited departure from a pure adversary model. This is because the
prosecutor's role transcends that of an adversary. The prosecutor is the
representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty...
whose interest... in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done.

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 n. 6 (1985) (citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.
78, 88 (1935)). The Florida Supreme Court has hammered home this obligation. In Knight v.
State, the court wrote, “[t]o comply with Brady, the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of
any favorable evidence and to disclose that evidence to the defense.” 225 So.3d 661, 679 (Fla.
2017).

Generally, in order for a Brady violation to occur, it must be established that: 1) the
evidence at issue is favorable, either because it is exculpatory in nature or because it is
impeaching; 2) the State fails to disclose the evidence to the defense, either willfully or
inadvertently; and 3) the failure to produce the evidence caused prejudice to the defendant. See
Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2003).

While disclosing favorable evidence is required regardless of a request by the defense,

the state has additional obligations once a demand has been made by the defense. Fl. R. Crim. P.
3220(b)(1)(A) provides that the state, within 15 days after service of the notice of discovery,
must disclose in writing to the defendant:

a list of the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have
information that may be relevant to any offense charged or any defense thereto, or
to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404(2),
Florida Statutes.

Thus, once a demand has been made, the state must disclose every person that may have
information relevant to the offense charged or any defenses. Here, a demand was made and the
State (the Office of the State Attorney) was under an obligation to comply with this rule.

A. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SUSAN LEE

The State failed to comply with its discovery obligations related to Susan Lee by not
listing her as a witness in its discovery exhibit. More shocking was that the State apparently at
all times intended to rely on text exchanges involving her to prove Ms. Gardner’s guilt and her
Defense team only became aware of the name “Susan Lee” on the eve of the May 15, 2024,
hearing through a draft evidence list. The Defense did not even see the text messages with Susan
Lee that the State would admit until the midst of the hearing, at which time it objected to
admission of the text messages on various grounds, all of which were overruled by the Court.

More prejudicial was Detective Johns’s claim that no one from the State had ever spoken
to Ms. Lee when he in fact had spoken to Ms. Lee and failed to follow-up and interview her. In
fact, when challenged, he lied about why she had not been interviewed rather than admitting she

5
was not interviewed because he failed to follow-up with her. Only by Ms. Lee watching the
actual hearing and contacting a lawyer did this information come to light because Detective
Johns wrote no report regarding his communication with Ms. Lee.

Had Ms. Lee properly been disclosed by the State – whether on its discovery exhibit or in
a report of the contact made by Detective Johns – the Defense would have become aware
through due diligence of her favorable statements regarding the text messages used by the State
at the Arthur hearing. Here, given the volume of discovery the Defense had not previously
identified Ms. Lee or the text messages, and it was impossible to conduct this due diligence on
the eve of the Arthur hearing based on a name, without an address or other contact information,
mentioned on a draft exhibit list.

Since the hearing, the Defense has conducted due diligence; for example, those text
messages used by the State (9 total text messages) are part of 48 text messages that date between
Ms. Jensen and Ms. Lee (and of thousands overall), with messages occurring before and after
that have nothing to do with the State’s portrayal of an effort to solicit a “magician.” Because of
the State’s failure to list Ms. Lee, the Defense was prejudiced at the Arthur hearing.

B. UNRECORDED INTERROGATION OF KIM JENSEN

The State – which includes both the prosecutors and Detective Johns – chose to suppress
the true circumstances of and statements made during the July 2023 interrogation of Ms. Jensen
at the State Attorney’s Office. No report was generated. No recording was made. Nothing has
been turned over regarding this meeting. Ms. Jensen was instructed to not discuss the meeting
with anyone. The Defense only learned of substantial, material favorable information after the
Arthur hearing. The Defense was undermined and could not obtain and present favorable
evidence including evidence that would undermine the veracity and reliability of what may be
the most incriminating evidence introduced by the State. Importantly, the State chose not to call
Ms. Jensen as a witness, which further implicates their knowledge that she would contradict their
representations to the Court about the July 2023 interrogation and their complicity in
misrepresenting the true nature of Ms. Jensen’s statements.

This discovery violation clearly meets the three-part test to establish a Brady violation.
First, the evidence withheld is favorable because it is both exculpatory and would serve as
impeachment of Detective Johns. Second, the State willfully failed to timely disclose this
evidence despite Ms. Gardner being indicted in August 2023, and facing the death penalty, and
the interrogation of Ms. Jensen occurring in July 2023. And third, the Defense was prejudiced
because it was limited in its ability to challenge the alleged statements made by Ms. Jensen
during this interrogation and the Court relied heavily on those statements in finding Ms. Gardner
was not entitled to pretrial release.

C. KNOWLEDGE OF HENRY TENON’S TRUCK

The materiality of the above failures cannot be understated as the Defense would have
utilized all impeachment materials similarly to how it successfully brought to light Detective
Johns’s misrepresentation on direct about Ms. Gardner’s knowledge of Mr. Tenon’s truck.

6
Detective Johns represented that Ms. Gardner shared the news that Mr. Tenon owned a blue
truck and that such information was insider information that only someone involved in the
murder would know. The Defense was successfully able to impeach Detective Johns because a
report was turned over to the defense in discovery. Yet, this did not stop the State from eliciting
on direct from Detective Johns that Ms. Gardner had no way of knowing that Mr. Tenon owned a
blue truck like the one sought in the murder because that detail had not yet been made public.
This is just another example of the State seeking to misrepresent facts to this Court.

***
The Defense now knows that Detective Johns lied to the Court regarding numerous
material facts and hearsay statements. The State further withheld favorable evidence from the
Defense, and then capitalized on its due process violations at the Arthur hearing. Because this is
a circumstantial case with no direct evidence of Ms. Gardner’s role in the murder of Mr.
Bridegan, every fact of consequence and alleged incriminating statement made by Ms. Gardner
is material and could tip the scales both at trial and at an Arthur hearing. The State’s actions
violate the clear rules governing discovery and Ms. Gardner’s due process rights. The Defense
was clearly prejudiced by the State’s actions at the Arthur hearing. If it wasn’t for the
independent acts of Ms. Jensen and Ms. Lee, by coming forward, the Defense would have been
unaware of this favorable evidence. Cleary, the State’s conduct warrants relief from the Court,
especially since the State was already on notice that its conduct in this case and discovery efforts
have fallen well short of established conduct for prosecutors. The Court should not ignore the
State’s cumulative conduct from the beginning of the discovery process in this case, including its
failure related to the taint review, and its withholding of favorable evidence.

AVAILABLE SANCTIONS

Shanna Gardner, through no fault of her own, was substantially and materially prejudiced
in her ability to present her defense in the Arthur hearing and only became aware of the
discovery violations and favorable evidence because Ms. Jensen and Ms. Lee came forward.

Pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. Pro 3.220(n)(1)(2) and the body of caselaw governing Brady
violations, the sanctions available to this Honorable Court are:
a. Order compliance with the discovery or inspection of the materials not
previously disclosed or produced;
b. Grant a mistrial or dismissal of the charges against the defendant due to
the violation of her due process rights and her inability to prepare her
defense;
c. Prohibit the State from calling any witnesses not disclosed;
d. Prohibit the State from introducing any evidence not disclosed;
e. Prohibit the State’s witnesses from mentioning at trial any of the
information obtained from the non-disclosed evidence and/or witnesses;
f. That the Office of the State Attorney be subjected to contempt
proceedings before this Court;
g. Court may enter such order as it deems just under the circumstances.

7
 This Court should enter an order that is just under the circumstances of the State’s
conduct that spanned months following the indictment and leading to the State’s presentation at
the Arthur hearing. This is not a case of poor judgment or an administrative oversight. The State
has not come forward on its own to correct its prior discovery failures. The Defense has clearly
suffered prejudiced both in preparing the case for trial and in its attack on the State’s case at the
Arthur hearing. Based on the State’s conduct so far in this case – including the conduct that has
been the subject of prior motions – this Court should enter an order granting this Motion and
awarding the following relief:
a. A special jury instruction to draw an inference in favor of Shanna Gardner that the
jury may view that after being placed under oath Detective Christopher Johns of the
Jacksonville Beach Police Department made false statements before this court
regarding the investigation of Shanna Gardner.
b. Excluding all text messages between Ms. Jensen and Ms. Lee.
c. Excluding all alleged statements made by Ms. Gardner as alleged to have been
relayed to the State by Ms. Jensen during the July 2023 interrogation.
d. Granting Ms. Gardner a bond upon consideration of the State’s conduct and
statements of Ms. Jensen and Ms. Lee.
e. Disqualify the Fourth Circuit State Attorney’s Office to ensure Ms. Gardner has a
conflict free and ethical prosecution of her pending charges.

WHEREFORE, Shanna Gardner respectfully moves this Honorable Court grant this
Motion and award the requested relief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rosemarie Peoples

ROSEMARIE PEOPLES
BAEZ LAW FIRM

8
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading was provided via Florida Courts E-
filing Portal to the State Attorney’s Office on June 21, 2024.

/s/ Armando A. Luis

ARMANDO A. LUIS
BAEZ LAW FIRM
Florida Bar Number: 1011037
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite #1410
Miami, FL 3313
Tel:(305) 999-5100
Fax:(305)999-5111
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Defendant

/s/ Rosemarie Peoples

ROSEMARIE PEOPLES
BAEZ LAW FIRM
Florida Bar Number: 0498238
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite #1410
Miami, FL 3313
Tel:(305) 999-5100
Fax:(305)999-5111
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Defendant