A judge has reversed an earlier ruling and granted bail to a man awaiting trial later this month on charges of harassing judges with internet posts that caused them to fear for the safety of their families.
Superior Court Judge Peter Brown rescinded a ruling he made two weeks ago that raised the bond to $1.5 million, an amount Paul Boyne was unable to post. Brown lowered bond back to about $7,000 Tuesday afternoon, leading to Boyne’s release while he awaits trial.
Brown raised the bond after finding that Boyne attempted to harass or intimidate prospective state witnesses by surreptitiously photographing a prosecution witness list in court and directly, or with assistance from supporters, emailing the list, with questions, to the witnesses.
Boyne appealed the bond increase, claiming it was punitive. Brown reduced the bond before the Appellate Court ruled on the question.
Boyne has argued and intends to argue at his trial that his admittedly racist, antisemitic and homophobic internet rants targeting judges and other professionals involved in divorce and custody cases amount to constitutionally protected speech.
One of the subjects of Boyne’s blog told detectives investigating him that the posts, published over years, caused her to fear for family members, friends and colleagues.
“The blog has repeatedly contemplated my murder and given detailed ways to carry it out, including posting a picture of my house with statements about how it could be burned,” the judge told detectives. “It has considered what types of bullets are necessary to pierce double pane windows, such as those I have on my home, and depicted me being shot with .50 caliber bullets.”
People familiar with Boyne, 64, have said he is obsessed with the resolution of his own divorce. He formerly lived in Glastonbury, but now lives with his elderly parents in suburban Washington, D.C. He is accused of 18 felony stalking and cyberstalking crimes.
Virginia man arrested for alleged cyberstalking of three CT judges
To be convicted of stalking, Boyne must be proven to have “knowingly” engaged in conduct that would cause a “reasonable” person to fear for his physical safety or the safety of a loved one and did so with no legitimate purpose other than harassing, terrorizing or alarming on the basis of “race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The law also prohibits the disclosure of a victim’s personal identifying information without a “legitimate” purpose
The electronic stalking law makes it illegal to use a computer or internet system to stalk a victim with the intent to “kill, injure, harass or intimidate” and to put the victim, a family member or partner “in reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily injury.
In a ruling a year and one half ago, Brown left it to a jury to decide whether Boyne’s posts are protected speech or amount to threats.
“One interpretation of the blog posts is that they are a general, hypothetical, and hyperbolic expression of an opinion, particularly one pertaining to matters of public concern,” Brown wrote.
“On the other hand, the fact that the defendant lists the addresses of, and makes/models/license plate numbers of vehicles driven by the affiants, combined with his description of the manner in which they might be harmed may suggest that the defendant’s language constituted a true threat.”