He withdrew his plea. It can still be used against him; Father of victim held in contempt - TCN Sidebar

**Joshua Ritter** (0:11)
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. We're recording this on Wednesday, May 27th, 2026 In this week's episode, a former teacher accused of brutally stabbing two strangers to death on a hiking trail, plus a victim's father held in contempt following an emotional outburst at a hearing for a quadruple murder suspect. But first, an alleged gunman's statements will be used against him after rejecting a plea deal in the murder for hire of a father. And today we are very happy to be joined by Ashley Willcott, a former judge, legal analyst, and child welfare specialist. Ashley, welcome back. How are you?

**Ashley Willcott** (1:01)
Oh, so great to be on with you. Thank you. Great. And always appreciate being on your show.

**Joshua Ritter** (1:06)
We always appreciate having you because you've got such vast experience having watched these trials and followed them and done commentary on them for so many years and as a former judge. And there's some interesting issues legally.
We talk about, you know, nominally, this show is about legal issues, but sometimes we get a little more into the weeds than other times. And this one, I'm glad that we have you on because there are some interesting issues to pop up in these cases, especially out of this first one. So let's head first to Jacksonville, Florida, where a gunman charged in the murder for hire of a father of four will have some of his incriminating statements allowed at trial after withdrawing his plea. Henry Tenon was set to serve as a state's witness in the killing of Jared Breidegan, a Microsoft exec, who was gunned down after a custody drop-off. Tenon had agreed to testify against his alleged co-conspirators, Breidegan's ex-wife, Shanna Gardner, and her new husband, Mario Fernandez. In exchange, Tenon was charged on the lesser offense of second-degree murder with a weapon, with a sentence beginning at 15 years. After he dramatically withdrew his plea, his trial is moving forward as a first-degree murder, and his sworn statement can be used in court. While the profferent negotiation surrounding the plea will not be allowed, prosecutors successfully argued that when Tenon signed the deal, he understood that he was becoming a witness in the case with expectations surrounding his statements. The plea deal will also include his sworn testimony regarding alleged co-conspirators Gardner and Fernandez, which will likely affect their trials. Though the case is not likely to reach a court until 2027, we will continue to keep you updated.
Ashley, jump right in. What do you think about this ruling? Because I got to tell you, I heard this and I was a little shocked. But what are your thoughts?

**Ashley Willcott** (3:05)
Josh, my first thought is, it's like we say, be careful what you say. It's going to be used against you. So the ruling was very specific. All of the proffer negotiations are not admissible, which is appropriate, right? When you try to settle a case at settlement negotiations, it shouldn't be admissible because you need to speak freely during those negotiations. But what the court said was they're going to agree with the prosecution that in signing the plea deal and signing what you're saying happened, that can be used against him. So now his own words will be used against him and the words against some of the co-conspirators. So now think about those people are like, what do you mean? Now those words he said are against us can be used in our trials as well. So with the limitation of it can't include negotiations. I was really not too surprised that it can be used against him because he knew that when he signed it or at least he should have known that because it said it.

**Joshua Ritter** (4:07)
Yeah, you know, here's the part that makes me uneasy is that he has a Fifth Amendment right to keep his mouth shut, right?
And I think we can all agree that he would not have opened his mouth unless he thought he was getting something out of it. Now, maybe what he agreed to somehow informed him of the idea that it could be used otherwise, even without his cooperation, but it's just to me, the prosecution is in a far better spot now, having at least advertised that he was going to get a deal, and he changes his mind and they're still getting the benefit of those words without the benefit of him actually test them, without him getting the benefit of the deal, if you follow what I'm saying. It just doesn't make you a little uneasy.