Connecticut Prosecutor Scrambles as Paul Boyne Exposes Flaws in Free Speech Prosecution
By Richard Luthmann
New Haven State’s Attorney Jack Doyle is bringing in a secret out-of-state witness to testify against Paul Boyne—but why?
In a letter to the court, Doyle announced that the prosecution had secured “an additional witness” to provide “relevant testimony” on Monday, March 10.
However, the big question remains: Who is Jack Doyle’s secret witness, and why is this suddenly necessary?
Boyne, who spent 18 months in a Connecticut jail for publishing incendiary blog posts about the state’s judiciary, thinks this is just another desperate maneuver to justify a collapsing case.
“They’re trying to make something out of nothing,” Boyne said on The Unknown Podcast, where he spoke with investigative journalists Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe for one of the first public interviews since his release.
The controversial blogger believes the so-called “witness” is nothing more than a Securus employee, a representative from the prison communication system.
“They’re going to drag someone in to testify about phone calls and emails,” Boyne scoffed. “It’s a nothing burger.”
Boyne, now under pretrial release in Virginia, maintains that his prosecution is a politically motivated vendetta orchestrated by Connecticut’s judicial elite—particularly former Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz.
Jack Doyle’s Desperate Play: His Case Is Falling Apart
While Doyle plays cloak-and-dagger with his “mystery witness,” Boyne is on the legal offensive.
Paul Boyne Strikes Back: No Free Speech and Weaponized Justice in Connecticut!
- He has demanded a Bill of Particulars under Connecticut Practice Book §§ 41-20 and 41-21, arguing that Doyle has never specified what speech constitutes a crime or why the case is being prosecuted in New Haven.
- He has filed a lawsuit against Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, challenging his extradition from Virginia and the constitutionality of Connecticut’s cyberstalking law.
- He believes the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ruling in Attorney General v. Hood —a major First Amendment victory—strengthens his defense.
“Connecticut doesn’t want to admit they violated the Constitution,” Boyne said. “They’re stalling. They know they have a losing case.”
Weaponized Justice and the Hood Case: A Game-Changer?
On The Unknown Podcast, Boyne and journalists Luthmann and Volpe dissected the recent New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling that threw out charges against white nationalist Christopher Hood.
Hood and members of NSC-131 hung a “KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE” banner from an overpass. The New Hampshire Attorney General tried to charge them under a Civil Rights statute, arguing the banner constituted trespassing with racial motivation.
However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court shut down the case, ruling that the state’s attempt to criminalize speech through creative legal arguments violated the First Amendment.
Boyne says Connecticut is trying to pull the same stunt against him.
“If the First Amendment protects neo-Nazis hanging racist banners, it sure as hell protects me from prosecution over satire,” Boyne said.
Jack Doyle’s Desperate Play: Where is the Bill of Particulars?
Boyne’s legal strategy revolves around a simple demand: Doyle must spell out the charges in detail.
Under Connecticut law (Practice Book Sec. 41-21), a defendant has the right to a Bill of Particulars, forcing prosecutors to provide specifics about the alleged crime, including time, place, and conduct.
Doyle has refused.
“They’re keeping it vague on purpose,” Boyne said. “If they provide details, their case falls apart.”
Here’s why:
- None of the alleged “threats” were made in New Haven.
- The supposed “victims” (Judges Grossman, Stewart, and Moukawsher) don’t work in New Haven.
- Connecticut law doesn’t allow venue shopping.
“If the state can’t say where the crime happened, they can’t prosecute me,” Boyne said.
Luthmann explained the high stakes: If Judge Brown denies Boyne’s request, any conviction could be thrown out on appeal.
Joette Katz and the KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY Email
One of the biggest revelations in Boyne’s defense is a handwritten note found in discovery:
“KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY.”
The note was scrawled on an email from Detective Samantha McCord, the lead investigator in Boyne’s case.
Boyne says this proves Katz—who left the Connecticut Supreme Court to work for the powerful law firm Shipman & Goodwin LLP—was secretly directing his prosecution.
“The entire case is a judicial hit job,” Boyne said. “Doyle isn’t prosecuting for the people of Connecticut. He’s covering for the judiciary.”
Jack Doyle’s Desperate Play: Will Boyne Call His Bluff?
Boyne is also considering the nuclear option—forcing Connecticut’s judiciary to testify under oath.
Under Connecticut General Statutes § 54-86, a criminal defendant can subpoena key witnesses, including judges, prosecutors, and investigators.
If granted, Boyne’s legal team could depose:
- Judges Grossman, Stewart, and Moukawsher (the alleged “victims”)
- Detective McCord (who pushed the search warrant based on Boyne’s alleged “bias”)
- Joette Katz (who may have been running the show behind the scenes)
Boyne’s attorneys, however, haven’t filed for these depositions.
“This case should have been dismissed already,” Luthmann said. “If Boyne’s lawyers press the issue, Connecticut’s judicial system could be exposed for what it is—corrupt and weaponized.”
The Verdict: A Political Prosecution on the Brink?
Boyne’s case is shaping up to be a landmark battle over free speech and prosecutorial misconduct.
Even his harshest critics admit that Connecticut’s handling of the case has been a disaster.
Boyne’s anti-Semitic statements have rightfully made him an unsympathetic figure. But as Volpe pointed out:
“The First Amendment doesn’t protect just popular speech. It protects all speech—even speech we despise.”
With the Trump DOJ cracking down on weaponized prosecutions, the real question isn’t whether Boyne will beat the charges—but how much damage his case will do to Connecticut’s judiciary before it’s over.
What’s Next?
- March 10: Doyle’s “Secret Witness” Testifies—Will It Change Anything?
- Boyne’s lawsuit against Gov. Ned Lamont moves forward.
- Potential depositions could force Connecticut’s judiciary under oath.
- Will the Trump DOJ step in to investigate Connecticut’s prosecution?
One thing is certain: Paul Boyne isn’t backing down.
