Which statutes and penalties correspond to each of the 34 charges against Donald J. Trump?

1. How prosecutors framed the 34 counts as a single criminal theory that mattered

Prosecutors in Manhattan presented the 34 counts as individual false entries in business records that collectively concealed a broader effort to suppress damaging information during the 2016 election cycle; each count corresponds to a specific record entry the prosecution alleges was falsified to conceal misconduct related to payments and “catch-and-kill” arrangements, and the office emphasized that the falsifications were intended to aid or conceal another crime, elevating the offense to first-degree falsifying business records ^{[1] [5]}. The indictment text was released publicly, and news outlets summarized the counts as tied to the $130,000 payment to adult-film actor Stormy Daniels; the prosecution relied on documentary evidence and witness testimony to link entries in Trump Organization records to the alleged concealment scheme ^{[6] [2]}. The Manhattan DA framed the counts both as record crimes and as part of a scheme that touched on election integrity, positioning the falsified entries as functional elements of wider alleged wrongdoing ^[1].

2. The statutory label and the usual statutory penalty picture

Under New York law, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree is a class E felony when entries are made with intent to defraud and to commit or conceal another crime; class E felonies typically expose defendants to a statutory maximum of incarceration, commonly cited as up to four years in New York, though sentencing ranges and disposition depend on judicial discretion, criminal history, and statutory sentencing frameworks ^[1]. Reporting repeatedly identifies the 34 counts by that statute, and analyses note the theoretical prison exposure even as commentators debated the realistic likelihood of incarceration in this high-profile matter ^{[2] [7]}. The key legal pivot in this case was not statutory labeling alone but prosecutorial proof that each alleged false record was made with the requisite mens rea to hide another crime, a factual showing the jury accepted in finding guilt on the counts that comprise the indictment ^[5].

3. What happened at sentencing — an unusual outcome that changed practical penalties

Although the statute carries potential prison time, the court ultimately imposed an unconditional discharge rather than incarceration, fines, or probation, a resolution that leaves the convictions in place while imposing no further punishment; court coverage and later summaries explain the judge’s decision as grounded in the exceptional context of the defendant’s status and cited legal protections asserted by the defense ^{[3] [4]}. Media accounts and court observers emphasized that while the convictions remained, the absence of a custodial or monetary sentence makes the practical consequences substantially different from the statute’s maximum penalty, and the outcome prompted legal debate about whether the discharge reflected judicial discretion, constitutional considerations, or other extraordinary factors presented at sentencing ^{[3] [8]}. The discharge preserved the felony convictions on the record while effectively eliminating immediate criminal sanctions, a rare sentencing result for such a case ^[4].

4. Defense claims, immunity themes, and the prosecution’s counterarguments

The defense argued that evidence and acts presented at trial were protected as official presidential acts and therefore shielded by presidential immunity, seeking to exclude testimony and materials tied to campaign-period conduct; courts considered and mostly rejected those immunity arguments, finding much of the evidence related to unofficial conduct not covered by immunity and therefore admissible — a central contested issue during pretrial and trial litigation ^{[7] [2]}. The prosecution countered that the falsified records were bookkeeping entries designed to conceal private payments and related schemes, not legitimate official acts, framing the case as classic business-record fraud augmented by intent to conceal separate crimes ^{[1] [5]}. Coverage and analyses record this clash as both a legal strategy and a political narrative, with the defense and supporters casting the prosecution as politically motivated while prosecutors insisted the charges were routine criminal enforcement of recordkeeping laws ^[2].

5. What independent reporting and studies add — consistency and divergences across sources

Independent summaries, court documents, and legal studies consistently identify the 34 counts as first-degree falsifying business records tied to the Stormy Daniels payment and related concealment, and they align on the factual scaffolding: documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the $130,000 payment form the core of the prosecution’s case ^{[6] [8] [5]}. Divergences appear in interpretation of consequences and emphasis: some outlets foreground the statutory maximum exposure and the gravity of a 34-count felony verdict, while others highlight the practical nullification of punishment via the unconditional discharge, and still others concentrate on constitutional claims of immunity and political context, signaling different editorial priorities or institutional agendas ^{[2] [3]}. The record of indictment, conviction, and discharge is consistent across sources, but readers should note that statutory exposure and practical sentencing outcomes are distinct legal dimensions documented repeatedly in the reporting ^{[1] [3]}.