Two vehicles carrying Mangu Kaha members arrived, along with others on foot.
Many of the group carried weapons, including Jolley, who had a shotgun.
Shots were fired, a car was damaged and one man was seriously injured in the confrontation.
Jolley, as well as fellow Mangu Kaha members Robert Dashwood and Cramer Tana McMeeking, were convicted of participating in an organised criminal group.
On top of his attempted murder conviction, Jolley was also convicted of being unlawfully in an enclosed building.
Dashwood was convicted of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and McMeeking of intentional damage and possession of an offensive weapon.
Jolley was sentenced to 11 years' jail, Dashwood five years and McMeeking three years and seven months.
Jolley's Supreme Court appeal followed a failed appeal he, Dashwood and McMeeking made to the Court of Appeal last year.
That 2018 judgment listed seven grounds for appeal, one of which was attempted intimidation of the jury.
Jury members were followed to their cars one day during the second week of the trial and people in the public gallery made "threatening gestures" over two nights.
"One person made a gesture imitating a gun and another tapped his wrist as if tapping a watch."
After the incidents, Justice Sarah Katz put in place security arrangements for alternative transport for jurors and directed the jury about prejudice that could arise.
Defence counsel also argued the jury-vetting process in Rotorua was unfair.
The process, set out in the judgment, was that jury lists were passed from the Crown solicitor to police, who would not know which trial the list was for.
Police then checked the names on the list against the National Intelligence Application (NIA) and crossed out names with "active alerts" for gang membership, drug use or unlawful firearm possession.
Anyone on the list with an extensive criminal history was also crossed out.
Details on why each name was crossed out were not given to the Crown.
The grounds for appeal failed, however, because "there is no basis on which to find that there was specific prejudice that could have led to unfairness in this trial.
"No information is available to suggest that any juror or jurors were, by reason of previous non-disqualifying convictions, pre-disposed against any of the appellants."
Other grounds of appeal were that witness protection was disclosed to the jury, hearsay evidence was presented, and the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent, and the cumulative effect of these complaints.
The Court of Appeal decision said: "We have concluded that, although there were some irregularities in this trial, they did not, in themselves, lead to a miscarriage of justice in the sense of creating a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected."
Jolley's appeal to the Supreme Court argued the jury-vetting process in Rotorua was not proper practice.
It also challenged the Court of Appeal's decision in respect of the way the trial was run, including the way the prosecutor opened the case, evidence given by a police officer, hearsay evidence in respect of identification evidence, and alleged jury intimidation.
The Supreme Court decision, released this week, accepted "it is not sensible for jury-vetting practices in New Zealand to differ by region and we note that, in the wake of similar comments made by the Court of Appeal, the Solicitor-General is considering whether to issue national guidelines".
"That said, we do not see this complaint and the associated arguments as warranting the granting of leave (to appeal). There is no suggestion in the submissions of actual tangible prejudice to the applicant associated with what happened."
The judgment said the concerns about the way the trial was run were not of public or general importance.
"As well, they were adequately dealt with by the Court of Appeal and we see no appearance of a miscarriage of justice."
