What are the specific statutes and code sections cited in each of the 34 felony counts against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
The 34 felony counts against Donald Trump in the New York “hush-money” case were all prosecuted as first‑degree falsifying business records under New York Penal Law §175.10, with each count tied to a specific business record dated between February and December 2017 (prosecutors alleged the documents concealed $130,000 in payments related to Stormy Daniels) [1]. Multiple mainstream summaries and timelines note the jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts on May 30, 2024, and that the payments and records were central to the indictment [1] [2].
1. What the indictment actually cites: one statute, 34 applications
The New York indictment charged 34 separate felony counts, but they all invoked the same statutory provision: New York Penal Law §175.10 — falsifying business records in the first degree. Sources state the indictment linked each count to a distinct business document with dates spanning February 14 through December 5, 2017, meaning the 34 counts were individual applications of the same statute, not 34 different statutes [1].
2. Why one statute becomes 34 felonies: the prosecution’s approach
Prosecutors tied each alleged act of falsification to a separate entry or business record; New York law allows multiple counts when multiple documents or distinct acts are alleged. Reporting summarizes that each count corresponded to a specific record prosecutors said Trump altered or caused to be altered to conceal the payment scheme involving Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels [1] [3]. The allegation amount commonly cited for the payment in reporting is $130,000 and, with associated costs, $420,000 appears in some summaries as the total of related expenses [1].
3. How major outlets and trackers present the counts
Authoritative aggregators (Ballotpedia, Wikipedia, AP, PBS) and legacy reporting consistently describe the case as 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree [4] [1] [2] [5]. Those sources report the trial timeline, the May 30, 2024 guilty verdict, and subsequent sentencing developments, confirming the single‑statute, many‑count structure rather than a patchwork of separate criminal statutes [4] [1] [2].
4. What reporting does not provide (and limits of public sources)
Available sources do not include the verbatim charging instrument or list each individual document’s exact docket citation in this set of search results; the summaries cite the legal statute (§175.10) and the date range for the documents but do not reproduce line‑by‑line statutory citations for every count as might appear in an official indictment document [1]. For that granular text — the precise paragraph language attached to each numbered count — readers must consult the indicting instrument on court dockets or the Manhattan District Attorney’s public filings, which are not included in the provided results [1].
5. Competing viewpoints and why they matter
Coverage uniformly identifies §175.10 as the charged statute [1], but outlets differ in emphasis: some frame the case as a narrow business‑records prosecution over technical falsifications (noting class‑E felony status and the procedural posture of peremptory strikes), while others emphasize the underlying conduct — hush payments to conceal an alleged extramarital encounter — and political implications for a president‑elect [1] [3] [2]. These editorial choices reflect differing agendas: legal‑process reporting focuses on statute and courtroom procedure [1], while political coverage stresses electoral and reputational fallout [2] [3].
6. Practical takeaway for readers seeking the exact legal text
If your goal is to read the precise language used to charge each of the 34 counts (the numbered counts’ phrasing in the indictment), the current reporting confirms they invoke New York Penal Law §175.10 and ties each count to a dated document [1]. However, the exact phrasing for each count and any ancillary statutory cross‑references are not reproduced in these sources; consult the official indictment or the Manhattan DA’s filings for the verbatim statutory citations and count‑by‑count text (not found in the current reporting) [1].
Limitations: this account uses only the documents and summaries returned in the current search set; court dockets and the full indictment text are not provided here and would be the definitive source for each numbered charge’s precise statutory language [1] [4].