After-trial party raises verdict doubt - lawyers

By TONY WALL

The Bar Association says an after-trial party in Auckland involving jurors, lawyers and an acquitted man raises serious questions about the safety and impartiality of the jury's verdicts on drugs charges.

The Weekend Herald revealed that the party was held at the home of defence lawyer John Kovacevich after a seven-week trial in the Auckland District Court involving seven people charged with conspiracy to supply methamphetamine.

The jury convicted four people and acquitted three.

The Herald has spoken to a juror who says that after the verdicts were given, five jurors and defence lawyer Adam Couchman went to Mr Kovacevich's Mt Eden home, where they met one of the acquitted men, David McLean.

The juror says she drank whisky and smoked cannabis, but left after she was taken into a room and shown a powder cut into three lines on top of a dresser.

She heard later that another juror took drugs and a third had sex at the party.

Mr Couchman says that he left when Mr McLean arrived.

The Auckland District Law Society is investigating the allegations after receiving a complaint from a solicitor who did not attend the party.

Last night, Justice Minister Phil Goff said the incident raised "huge concerns" and the matter needed to be followed up.

"I would encourage the juror to come forward to allow the matter to be thoroughly investigated."

The juror has not contacted police.

But she said she would cooperate if subpoenaed.

Bar association president Stuart Grieve, QC, condemned the party.

He told the Herald yesterday that such contact between lawyers and jurors "simply should not occur".

"Rightly or wrongly it gives rise to the obvious question of whether there was contact during the trial.

"Plainly that leads on to serious questions about the safety and impartiality of the verdict.

"If police officers had been similarly involved after a guilty verdict, there would rightly be a public outcry."

Mr Grieve said the legal position relating to contact between lawyers and jurors after a trial was unclear.

"But there is a well recognised convention which prohibits lawyers from initiating any contact with jurors."

"The rule is, 'keep your distance' and if that proves impossible, then, 'beat a hasty retreat' as soon as possible," said Mr Grieve.

The courts would tolerate investigations into jury deliberations only in exceptional circumstances.

"If the secrecy and confidentiality of jury deliberations is compromised unnecessarily, verdicts would be analysed and questioned, leading to a re-litigation of issues already decided."

Mr Grieve said it was fortunate that the "vast majority" of criminal defence lawyers understood what was required and acted ethically and responsibly when confronted with situations where contact with a juror was inevitable.

Mr Couchman said he had been telephoned by two of the jurors who attended the party since the Herald broke the story.

One had left a message on his answerphone and he had a brief conversation with the other.

He did not speak at length because he thought it inappropriate.

Lawyer Marie Dyhrberg, who is representing one of the men who was convicted, Brent Curtis, told the Herald she was investigating events after the trial as part of her preparation for an appeal.

"Clearly I will consider whether what happens after a verdict had any possibility of influencing the verdict."

It would be problematic because jury deliberations had always been considered sacrosanct.

Meanwhile, Superintendent Ted Cox yesterday encouraged jurors or anyone else involved in the case with knowledge of post-trial events to contact police so the allegations could be properly considered.

* tony_wall@nzherald.co.nz