How have courts ruled on appeals of the 34 falsified business records convictions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Courts have not yet issued final appellate rulings that overturn the 34-count New York falsifying business records verdict; the conviction was returned by a jury in May 2024 and has been the subject of anticipated, potentially multi-year appeals . Legal observers see multiple layers of state and possibly federal review ahead — with state appellate courts likely to be deferential but the U.S. Supreme Court a conceivable final stop if a federal constitutional issue is framed — while political actors enthusiastically predict opposite outcomes .
1. The conviction and immediate aftermath: what was appealed or pledged to be appealed
A Manhattan jury found the defendant guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records on May 30, 2024, and the Manhattan District Attorney publicly announced the all-count conviction after presenting voluminous documentary and witness evidence . The defendant publicly vowed to appeal the conviction, and news organizations explained that an appeal is customarily filed after sentencing, a process that had already been delayed multiple times by the trial judge — which in turn creates a long runway for post‑trial challenges [1].
2. Procedural posture: sentencing, discharge, and the mechanics of an appeal
Judge Juan Merchan postponed sentencing several times, citing reasons from avoiding perceptions of political bias around Election Day to resolving related immunity arguments — and ultimately an “unconditional discharge” was recorded, leaving the conviction on the record but imposing no fine or imprisonment at the time reported [1]. Appeals of state convictions proceed through New York’s appellate courts and can be stayed or extended by procedural maneuvers; news coverage and legal commentary uniformly predicted lengthy appellate litigation that could traverse intermediate state courts and implicate federal constitutional claims on the way [1].
3. How appellate courts are expected to rule — prevailing expert views
Prominent commentators and panels observed that New York state appellate courts are likely to hew close to the trial court’s findings and be reluctant to overturn the jury’s verdict absent clear legal error, making reversal in state court an uphill climb absent a focused federal constitutional question . Legal analysts see the most promising appellate strategies as attacking the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, or asserting federal constitutional claims — strategies that could carry the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, should a justiciable federal issue be accepted .
4. Precedent and counterexamples: appellate relief has happened, but rarely in comparable cases
Scholars who cataloged falsifying‑business‑records cases note most convictions are not reversed on appeal, but there are notable exceptions — for example, the Booker decision involved reversal on appeal in a less politically charged municipal context — and commentators caution against easy analogies because the present case’s contours (alleged election interference) make direct comparisons imperfect . That body of research also emphasizes that the vast majority of first‑degree falsifying business records convictions nationwide do not result in incarceration, and appellate outcomes vary considerably by factual and legal posture .
5. Political reactions and their influence on expectations of appellate outcomes
Political figures immediately declared conflicting expectations — some GOP leaders asserted the verdict “will not withstand an appeal,” while others in government and legal circles predicted procedural endurance of the conviction pending appeals . These partisan pronouncements do not determine legal outcomes, but they shape public expectations and the rhetorical terrain surrounding appellate filings and potential stays .
6. Conclusion: pending appeals, likely paths, and what courts have actually ruled so far
As of the reporting available, courts have not yet delivered appellate rulings reversing the 34‑count falsifying business records conviction; what exists is an active and anticipated appellate process that could be protracted, likely starting in New York’s appellate courts and potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court if federal constitutional claims are pressed — experts differ on odds, with many predicting state courts will be deferential but acknowledging real pathways for reversal in narrow circumstances and limited precedents that favor defendants in some fact patterns [1]. Reporting limitations preclude asserting any final appellate decision because none is documented in the sources provided [1].