What evidence and charges led to each of Donald Trump’s convictions?

1. The New York “hush‑money” conviction: what the jury found and why

Prosecutors in Manhattan charged Trump with falsifying business records in connection with payments that they say were made to keep Stormy Daniels from publicizing an alleged affair before the 2016 election; a jury convicted him on all 34 counts after a six‑week trial that ran April–May 2024 ^[1][5]. The prosecution’s theory was that Trump and others disguised the true purpose of payments in corporate records to conceal campaign‑related activity; the defense argued the payments were ordinary business transactions and attacked the credibility of the chief cooperating witness, Michael Cohen ^[1]. Reporting and timelines emphasize the central evidence at trial included Cohen’s testimony and documentary material the prosecution said showed a concerted scheme to hide the payments ^[1].

2. Sentencing outcome and post‑verdict maneuvers

Although convicted in May 2024, Trump’s sentencing process stretched into 2025: Judge Juan Merchan delayed sentencing multiple times while immunity issues and other motions were litigated, then imposed an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, meaning no fines, prison, or further penalties were assessed ^[2][1]. The Manhattan DA’s office won the jury verdict; subsequent litigation has focused on appeals and whether evidence admitted at trial implicated official presidential acts allegedly protected by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision ^[1][3].

3. Appeals and the immunity argument

Trump’s appellate teams have argued the trial was “fatally marred” because the court admitted testimony and documents they contend were protected by presidential immunity after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States; they asked appeals courts to set aside the conviction on that basis ^[3]. Federal authorities — notably the Justice Department — later filed briefs urging that the New York conviction be overturned because it rested on what the DOJ called improper evidence or a legal theory preempted by federal law, signaling an unusual interbranch intervention in post‑conviction appellate advocacy ^[4].

4. Other criminal matters and what the sources do not say

Major reporting and reference pieces in the provided set focus on the New York falsified‑records conviction; available sources do not detail convictions in the Georgia, federal classified‑documents, or January‑6‑related matters as finalized criminal convictions for Trump, though they discuss indictments, pauses, dismissals, or dropped prosecutions in other forums ^[5][6][7]. For example, the Georgia election case received attention about prosecutorial disqualification and pauses, but the provided snippets do not establish final convictions in that matter ^[5].

5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in coverage

Manhattan prosecutors framed the case as law‑enforcement applying business‑records and campaign‑finance principles to concealment; defense and allied outlets frame the proceedings as politically motivated and argue evidentiary or constitutional errors, calling the prosecution a “witch hunt” in filings cited by Axios ^[1][3]. The Department of Justice’s unusual brief seeking reversal introduces a competing federal perspective that emphasizes preemption and preserving uniform federal interests ^[4]. Readers should note prosecutors’ interest in enforcing state criminal statutes and Trump’s political and legal teams’ interest in framing litigation as political — both are explicit in the sourced reporting ^[1][3][4].

6. What to watch next in public reporting

Primary developments to monitor in these sources are appellate decisions addressing the immunity and evidentiary claims, any actions by federal courts in response to DOJ briefs seeking reversal, and follow‑up reporting on paused or transferred prosecutions (for example, developments in Georgia’s prosecution and any further appeals) ^[3][5][4]. Given the sources’ attention to post‑verdict briefs and motions, appellate rulings will be the key determinant of whether the Manhattan conviction stands or is vacated ^[3][4].

Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied search results. If you want deeper legal citations (indictment language, trial exhibits, or full appellate briefs), say which case and I will summarize only those primary documents if you provide them; available sources do not supply full briefs or transcripts here (not found in current reporting).