City lawyer going before highest court in the land

Charleston Daily Mail ^ | 30 April 2008 | Cheryl Caswell

[marktwain]

The case of a Marion County man will go to the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, and a Charleston attorney will become one of a limited number of West Virginia lawyers to argue in that venue.

Troy Giatras will defend Randy Hayes of Mannington, a contractor convicted of a felony gun possession charge, and ask the highest court to clarify Second Amendment right to bear arms.

No matter the outcome of Hayes' case, Giatras will receive the coveted quill presented to all lawyers who come before the U.S Supreme Court.

"It's an honor," Giatras said. "For 99 percent of lawyers, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.

"It's the absolute pinnacle for a lawyer," Giatras said. "Because it's the highest court in the nation."

He expects the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case between October and December.

Out of about 5,000 petitions the court receives each year to hear cases, the justices accept only about 75. Giatras says not that many West Virginia lawyers have argued a case before the country's highest court.

Hayes' case goes back to 1994, when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor battery offense after a dispute with his wife. Ten years later, an argument over their son occurred over the phone between the now-divorced parents and she asked police to go to his home.

When they searched Hayes home, an old Winchester rifle given to him by his father was found under a bed. Hayes didn't know it, but a 1996 amendment to federal gun laws made it illegal for him to possess the gun because of his prior misdemeanor offense.

Giatras was retained two days before Hayes was expected to plead guilty to the gun charge in federal court.

"We halted the entire process in March 2005," Giatras said. "Because he only pleaded guilty in 1994 to battery, not domestic battery. But the federal court interpreted it as domestic battery because it was against a family member."

"In 1994 and in 1995, he was legally able to have a gun," Giatras said. "The 1996 law was applied to him retroactively, but he didn't even know it."

The case proceeded through the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond in October 2006 and the court reversed the earlier decision. But the U.S. Justice Department appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court agreed last month to hear the case.

Giatras said the case is important because it will further define the right to own a gun and also addresses the issue of laws affecting citizens retroactively

[marktwain]

This looks like a good case for the court. I hope they made the right arguments.

[FreeInWV]

“This looks like a good case for the court. I hope they made the right arguments.”

Me too. The BATF & federal prosecutors play fast & loose with the law in this particular region. I guess they assume that people will just roll over and not retain quality counsel. I know of 3 attrocious cases where it worked.

[green iguana]

I’d like to know why the police could search his home because he got into an argument over the phone...

[JOAT]

Ten years later, an argument over their son occurred over the phone between the now-divorced parents and she asked police to go to his home. When they searched Hayes home

Utter Horse Excrement.

The police had no authority whatsoever to do this. Did they get some Rat judge to issue a warrant?

It appears she must have pulled the "I felt threatened" card even though there was no physical interaction.

[jim_trent]

This is the case that should have been brought to the Supreme Court first. The last case that made it there was someone who was convicted AFTER the law was made. It was upheld. This one was BEFORE the law was made. I cannot see how anyone can increase punishment for a conviction after the fact.

That does not help anyone who was convicted after the law was made, regardless of the truth of the accusation, but at least, it will stop retroactive punishment.