USA V. LAYFIELD, No. 22-50047 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involved an appeal by Philip James Layfield against his convictions for wire fraud, mail fraud, and various tax offenses. Layfield argued that the 21-day period it took the U.S. Marshals Service to transport him from the District of New Jersey, where he was arrested, to the Central District of California (CDCA), where he was indicted, violated the Speedy Trial Act and required the court to overturn his convictions. The argument centered on a provision of the Speedy Trial Act that mandates trial commencement within seventy days from the date a defendant appears before a judicial officer of the court where the charge is pending.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Layfield's argument, affirming his convictions. The court ruled that the 21-day delay between Layfield's detention in New Jersey and his first appearance before a judge in the CDCA was immaterial to the Speedy Trial Act analysis. The court held that a plain reading of the relevant section of the Speedy Trial Act dictates that the 21-day delay did not trigger a Speedy Trial Act violation. The court also rejected Layfield's argument that a different provision became relevant because he was detained. The court held that this provision applies to prisoners traveling between jurisdictions for court proceedings once the seventy-day clock has started, not to a pre-indictment or pre-appearance transfer.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming Philip James Layfield’s convictions for wire fraud, mail fraud, and various tax offenses, the panel rejected Layfield’s argument that that the twenty-one days it took the U.S. Marshals Service to transport him from the District of New Jersey (where agents arrested him) to the Central District of California (CDCA) (where the grand jury indicted him) should have triggered a Speedy Trial Act violation.
Layfield argued that, properly accounting for the transportation delay, the government did not bring him to trial within the seventy-day limit set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(c)(1).
Section 3161(c)(1) provides that the seventy-day clock is triggered by the public filing of the indictment or the first appearance before a judge of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.
Layfield’s first appearance before a judge in the CDCA, which occurred fourteen days after the public filing of his indictment, triggered the seventy-day clock. The panel held that a plain reading of § 3161(c)(1) dictates that the twenty- one-day delay between Layfield’s detention in New Jersey and his first appearance before a judge in the CDCA was immaterial to the Speedy Trial Act analysis.
The panel rejected Layfield’s argument that because he was detained, a different provision becomes relevant. Section 3161(h)(1)(F) provides that, in calculating the seventy days, a “delay resulting from transportation of any defendant from another district . . . in excess of ten days . . . shall be presumed to be unreasonable.” The panel explained that this provision applies to prisoners travelling between jurisdictions for court proceedings once the seventy-day clock has started—not to a pre-indictment or pre-appearance transfer.
The panel addressed Layfield’s other challenges to some of his convictions in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.