The parents of the two minors involved in a May incident in a bathroom in Central Park appeared in Lyon County District Court on Wednesday in a harassment hearing, a legal proceeding where a judge decides whether to issue a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) or an Order for Protection (OFP).
The judge made it clear that Wednesday’s hearing had nothing to do with the park incident, urging those testifying to focus only on three separate restraining orders filed by Jordan and Samantha Rolling — two against David Wilson and one against his teenage son (the respondents to the restraining order). Anything outside of that, the judge asserted, would be considered irrelevant.
The contested HRO hearing stems from complaints made by the Rolling family concerning what they perceive as consistent harassment from the Wilsons, both on high school property and at the Rolling residence.
The Rollings and Wilsons all testified and neither party was represented by an attorney.
Samantha Rolling opened Wednesday’s testimony, alleging the younger Wilson repeatedly harassed the Rolling’s 16-year-old daughter in what she said started out as an innocent crush he had on her.
“It started essentially the beginning of this past school year to basically (the) current time,” Samantha Rolling testified. “My daughter started receiving notes and letters from (the respondent), mostly, ‘Will you go out with me?’ ‘Will you be my girlfriend?’ She verbally denied (them).”
She added the respondent made comments to the Rolling’s son that he was “going to go out with his sister” … and more graphic one’s telling him “what will be done to his sister. This did start out innocently. (Our son) from Day 1 has always been concerned … “ Samantha Rolling went on to say their son told him to stop and leave her alone but testified that things escalated, saying the respondent followed her around to different classes.
“There were periods when he was waiting at her vehicle in the parking lot a few times,” Samantha Rolling said. “He also said, ‘I’m going to come to your house for (their daughter).’ (Our son) again told him to stop making comments.”
The boys were told by school staff that interaction between the two boys needed to stop because they were disrupting to the class, Samantha Rolling said.
She added that two boys, including the respondent, showed up at the Rolling residence.
“They did not leave, so my husband went outside and said, ‘Boys, you need to leave,’” she said.
On May 15, Samantha Rolling testified, both parents got a call from their daughter that she needed to go home for some items and came upon David Wilson standing outside the Rolling home. Samantha Rolling said her neighbor saw this, and she testified to that as well Wednesday.
Samantha Rolling said she called Wilson and told him he is not allowed on their property. She added that her family has been negatively affected in the days following the park incident by public backlash, both from Facebook posts and an opinion piece published in the Tracy Area Headlight Herald on May 29.
Samantha Rolling said the family filed for the HRO on May 19, which was granted and served to the Wilsons a day later, she testified.
As to allegations that the Rollings benefitted from a familial relationship with law enforcement after the Central Park incident, Jordan Rolling testified that he is a distant relative of two law enforcement personnel, but that their relationship has no bearing on the matter at hand. Wilson called the Headlight Herald late Wednesday after the hearing and claimed many of the things the Rollings said in court about his son weren’t true and that he didn’t get much of a chance to defend himself or his son.
He was also upset that most of the evidence he wanted to use in his defense wasn’t allowed to be introduced in court.
Wilson testified he had problems uploading videos he wanted submitted into evidence to be used as exhibits but they were not submitted as evidence because the Rollings hadn’t been allowed to see them. Wilson was handed four photographs relevant to the case before the hearing began. He was allowed to offer his exhibits verbally; of the 35 items, all but seven were received by the court.
The remaining exhibits were objected to by the Rollings due to relevance and/or lack of disclosure, and those objections were sustained, meaning they wouldn’t be entered into evidence.
The judge ultimately took the matter under advisement and told the Rollings and Wilsons that they will be notified by mail what her decision is concerning the HRO.
