Case No. 2025-010560CF10A | 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida | Judge Peter F.C. Holden

This article is based on a review of public court filings, docket entries, and orders in the case. It is offered as a factual case summary, not legal advice.

The Charge

Giuliano Puzo — known professionally as DJ K9 — is charged with a single count of Written or Electronic Threat to Kill or Do Bodily Injury, a second-degree felony under Florida Statute § 836.10. The Broward Sheriff’s Office arrest affidavit alleges that on January 30, 2025, during a podcast titled “De Tout Et Et Rien,” Puzo verbally threatened to “drop bullets on” the alleged victim, and that he separately sent text messages stating he was “going to find you and put a bullet in you” and that the victim “won’t make it out alive.” The victim reported the threats to police on February 23, 2025, and a warrant issued September 10, 2025, leading to Puzo’s arrest on October 1, 2025. He was arraigned October 3, 2025, entered a not-guilty plea, and posted a $10,000 surety bond.

The case has spent much of 2026 litigating a sworn motion to dismiss filed by the defense (initially April 10, 2026, amended April 29, 2026). Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), a defendant can seek dismissal by swearing that the material facts are undisputed and that those undisputed facts don’t establish a prima facie case of guilt. Central to the defense’s motion was “Exhibit E” — a later-dated text-message screenshot the defense contends was fabricated or manipulated by the victim, along with testimony about a conversation between the victim and Puzo’s sister.

The State responded on June 16, 2026, with a Motion to Strike and/or Traverse, denying the material factual allegations line-by-line and arguing two key points:

  1. Timeliness — the motion to dismiss was filed roughly six months after Puzo’s arrest, when the underlying facts were already known to him, making it arguably untimely under Rule 3.190(c).
  2. Relevance — the disputed screenshot post-dates the January 30, 2025 podcast statements that form the actual basis of the charge, so even if the screenshot were fabricated, that dispute wouldn’t negate the State’s proof of the charged offense.

A hearing was held June 18, 2026 (the docket shows it was “held in part”), and on August 28, 2026, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The Expert Witness Fight: Fritz Meliscar Excluded

Tied directly to that same disputed screenshot, the defense had listed Fritz Meliscar, a data-privacy and cybersecurity consultant, as an expert witness to testify that the screenshot’s visual features were inconsistent with a “typical” unsolicited scam message — implying it may have been staged.

The State moved to strike Meliscar as a witness on August 26, 2026, arguing:

  • Irrelevance (§§ 90.401–.402): Meliscar’s report never analyzed the January 30, 2025 podcast statements that are the actual basis of the charge — only an unrelated, later screenshot.
  • Unfair prejudice (§ 90.403): Allowing the testimony risked a “collateral mini-trial” over an issue the State isn’t required to prove or disprove.
  • Lack of qualification (§ 90.702 / Daubert): Meliscar’s CV showed general IT-support and cybersecurity experience (CompTIA A+, Network+, Security+, Apple/Google device-repair certifications) but no training in digital forensics, mobile-device forensics, or SMS/carrier attribution. At his July 31, 2026 deposition, he acknowledged he had never before been qualified as an expert or testified in any court proceeding, and he never forensically examined the original phone, metadata, or carrier records — only a single screenshot.
  • No personal knowledge / hearsay (§§ 90.604, 90.801).

On August 28, 2026, the court granted the State’s Daubert objection, striking Meliscar as an expert witness — the same day it denied the motion to dismiss.

Where Things Stand Now

With the motion to dismiss denied and the defense’s forensic expert excluded, the case is moving toward trial preparation:

  • August 31, 2026: The defense filed a new Motion to Compel Discovery and Inspection of Device.
  • September 9, 2026 (this week), 8:45 a.m., Courtroom 5870: A hearing is noticed on that motion to compel, before Judge Holden.
  • October 22, 2026: A calendar call is currently scheduled, which typically precedes a trial date being set.

The case docket shows extensive continuances since arraignment (November 2025, December 2025, February 2026), a demand for notice of alibi filed by the State in December 2025 (to which no alibi notice from the defense appears in the record reviewed), and ongoing discovery disputes.

What’s Next

The immediate next step is the September 9, 2026 hearing on the defense’s motion to compel discovery and device inspection — likely seeking direct access to a phone (possibly the victim’s) to independently examine the disputed message/screenshot issue now that Meliscar can’t testify as an expert. How the court rules on that motion, and what it produces, will shape whether the defense has any remaining avenue to challenge the authenticity of that later text message at trial — even though the court has already found it doesn’t defeat the State’s prima facie case on the underlying charge.

Beyond that, the October 22, 2026 calendar call is the next scheduled step toward setting a trial date, unless further pretrial motions or continuances intervene, which — based on the case history — have been frequent.

Sources: Broward County Clerk of Courts case detail page; Notice of Hearing (filed 9/1/2026); Order re: Daubert objection (8/28/2026); Motion to Strike Defense Witness (8/26/2026); State’s Motion to Strike and/or Traverse of Defendant’s Sworn Motion to Dismiss (6/16/2026); Probable Cause Affidavit/Arrest Report (9/10/2025); Demand for Notice of Alibi (12/10/2025).