CHARLESTON, W.Va. - As he stood at the lectern in the Court Chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Charleston lawyer Troy Giatras had to remind himself to make eye contact with all nine justices.  Read about the case

"The room is very small, probably only half the size of the West Virginia Supreme Court," Giatras said. Designed by Cass Gilbert, the same architect who designed West Virginia's Capitol and Supreme Court, the high court's intimate setting leaves lawyers virtually face to face with Chief Justice John Roberts.

Monday's case, United States v. Hayes, concerned whether a 1994 battery conviction in which the victim was his wife barred Randy Hayes, a Marion County construction worker, from owning a gun.

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation making it illegal for people who had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery to own a gun. In 2004, officers responding to a 911 domestic violence call at Hayes' home found a Winchester rifle.

A federal grand jury indicted Hayes on charges of being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. Hayes entered a provisional plea of guilty, and on appeal the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his conviction.

The Department of Justice took the case to the Supreme Court, and in March the justices agreed to hear the case, making it one of roughly 75 cases a year to make the cut nationwide.

Although the case has become a part of the national debate on the 2nd Amendment, Hayes never meant to become a standard bearer for gun rights, said Giatras, who has been practicing law since 1990.

"His one goal is that he'd like to go hunting again with his sons," he said. "He didn't set out to somehow change the world. Nobody did here. All we were trying to do was get [the case] reviewed for Randy, and we ended up in the Supreme Court."

Because it was the government's appeal, Nicole A. Saharsky, assistant to the Solicitor General, went first. After about 25 minutes, it was Giatras' turn.

And with his wife and son looking on in the gallery, and no more introduction than "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court," Giatras was off, arguing that the government wanted to enforce a law that Congress may have intended but did not pass.

According to a 64-page transcript of Monday's arguments, Giatras completed three sentences before Justice Antonin Scalia interjected.  Read the transcript

(Visit www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-608.pdf to read the transcript.)

From that point on, the justices peppered Giatras with questions, many concerning the grammar of the federal law.

"The grammar issues were significant because this particular bill, what was introduced was not what was passed," Giatras said.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - As he stood at the lectern in the Court Chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Charleston lawyer Troy Giatras had to remind himself to make eye contact with all nine justices.  Read about the case

"The room is very small, probably only half the size of the West Virginia Supreme Court," Giatras said. Designed by Cass Gilbert, the same architect who designed West Virginia's Capitol and Supreme Court, the high court's intimate setting leaves lawyers virtually face to face with Chief Justice John Roberts.

Monday's case, United States v. Hayes, concerned whether a 1994 battery conviction in which the victim was his wife barred Randy Hayes, a Marion County construction worker, from owning a gun.

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation making it illegal for people who had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery to own a gun. In 2004, officers responding to a 911 domestic violence call at Hayes' home found a Winchester rifle.

A federal grand jury indicted Hayes on charges of being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. Hayes entered a provisional plea of guilty, and on appeal the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his conviction.

The Department of Justice took the case to the Supreme Court, and in March the justices agreed to hear the case, making it one of roughly 75 cases a year to make the cut nationwide.

Although the case has become a part of the national debate on the 2nd Amendment, Hayes never meant to become a standard bearer for gun rights, said Giatras, who has been practicing law since 1990.

"His one goal is that he'd like to go hunting again with his sons," he said. "He didn't set out to somehow change the world. Nobody did here. All we were trying to do was get [the case] reviewed for Randy, and we ended up in the Supreme Court."

Because it was the government's appeal, Nicole A. Saharsky, assistant to the Solicitor General, went first. After about 25 minutes, it was Giatras' turn.

And with his wife and son looking on in the gallery, and no more introduction than "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court," Giatras was off, arguing that the government wanted to enforce a law that Congress may have intended but did not pass.

According to a 64-page transcript of Monday's arguments, Giatras completed three sentences before Justice Antonin Scalia interjected.  Read the transcript

(Visit www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-608.pdf to read the transcript.)

From that point on, the justices peppered Giatras with questions, many concerning the grammar of the federal law.

"The grammar issues were significant because this particular bill, what was introduced was not what was passed," Giatras said.

The justices impressed Giatras with their in-depth knowledge of not only the legal issues of the case, but of the legislative history of the law in question.

"Regardless of the outcome, we felt that the court understood the technical aspects of the case," he said.

During both sides' arguments, only a few questions concerned the facts of the Hayes case, he said. The majority dealt either with the statutory history of how the statute moved through Congress, or the construction and the grammatical structure of the statute.

Giatras estimated that he spent 2,000 hours getting ready for Monday's appearance. Preparations included several weeks in seclusion reading case after case and a moot court at Georgetown University's law school.

Giatras enlisted the help of Michael F. Smith of the firm Butzel Long to help him prepare the written brief and for Monday's presentation.

"I chose Mike because of his honesty and sincerity, and he never had an intent or desire to argue the case," he said. "We were working together."

Giatras said he plans to frame the quill pen memento given only to lawyers who appear in front of the Supreme Court.

After appearing before the highest court in the country, Giatras indulged in "a big steak" for lunch at local institution Charlie Palmer's Steakhouse, lingering over the meal with his family for the first time in a month.

Asked what he will take away from the experience, Giatras said it reminded him of the intensity and commitment needed for each and every client.

It also felt good to practice law on such an elevated stage, he said.

"West Virginia lawyers particularly can compete on any level and do well," he said. "I had great lawyers throughout the state who encouraged me to argue the case and not turn it over to somebody else."

Reach Andrew Clevenger

at acleven...@wvgazette.com

or 348-1723.