Juror bias questioned in rape trial
Lawyers for two men who raped a 15-year-old girl are arguing the trial was unfair because the brother of one of the men bullied a the jury foreman during high school.
Brooke Rolleston and Brandon Roche were found guilty of raping and sexual violating the extremely intoxicated underage girl at a party near Christchurch in 2016. The two aggressively encouraged the girl’s boyfriend to leave the party. Before he did, he asked a female friend to put the girl to bed.
Later, Rolleston and Roche were seen carrying the girl, who was too drunk to walk, into another room, where they took turns raping and violating her. The girl was later found crying, vomiting and covered in bruises.
At sentencing in August 2017, Roche was jailed for 10 years and nine months, which was later reduced to nine years and seven months because of his age. Rolleston was jailed for 11 years and two months, later reduced to nine years and 11 months.
The Supreme Court is now considering an appeal from the pair’s lawyers, who argue the fairness of the trial was compromised because the jury foreman was bullied in high school by Rolleston’s older brother, Dante.
Dante Rolleston gave evidence in the Court of Appeal claiming he was verbally abusive towards the juror when the two were in the same year group at high school between 2011 and 2014. Brooke Rolleston was in the year above. The trial happened in 2017, three years after they left school.
Dante Rolleston said he had many aggressive exchanges towards the juror stemming from the juror’s tendency to stare intensely for minutes at a time. He claimed he noticed the juror staring at him in the same intense way during the trial, which triggered his memory. After the trial ended, he went back to his high school and looked in a yearbook, which confirmed his suspicion that he knew the juror.
In an affidavit, a teacher from the school confirmed Dante Rolleston physically and verbally bullied other students.
The case comes down to whether there was a close enough connection between the juror and Brooke Rolleston for there to be the appearance of bias.
The juror did not come forward when asked if he knew the accused at the start of trial, and Brooke Rolleston did not raise issues with any names on the juror list, though he now says he recognised the juror at some point during the trial.
The juror gave a written statement saying he was bullied by many students, and did not particularly remember Dante Rolleston or recognise him in the courtroom, let alone connect him to Brooke Rolleston.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding there was no evidence that would lead a neutral observer to believe the juror has any bias.
In the Supreme Court, lawyers for Rolleston and Roche cast doubts upon the juror’s statement. They said it was ‘‘inherently implausible’’ the juror did not recognise the Rolleston brothers just three years after high school. They pointed out the statement was not made under oath and, if the juror did have a grudge against either brother, he was unlikely to admit it now.
They argued a further inquiry should be sought into the accuracy of the statement, and suggested the court should allow them to cross-examine the juror.
Courts have traditionally been protective of jurors. No juror has ever been cross-examined in New Zealand. The Supreme Court is considering whether to open a further inquiry.
‘‘The case comes down to whether there was a close enough connection between the juror and Brooke Rolleston for there to be the appearance of bias.’’