Trumps charges he was convicted of in mnew york
Executive summary
Donald Trump was convicted by a Manhattan jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to a 2016 “hush‑money” payment to Stormy Daniels; the conviction came on May 30, 2024 (34 counts) and, after delays, he was sentenced to an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025 (sentence left the conviction on the record) [1] [2]. His legal team has repeatedly appealed and sought to move or overturn the conviction — arguing presidential‑immunity issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision — and federal courts have been asked to reconsider whether parts of the case belong in federal court [3] [4].
1. What he was charged with — the core allegation
The New York prosecution charged Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree, alleging that payments made to adult‑film actor Stormy Daniels in 2016 were concealed through improper bookkeeping to influence the presidential campaign; those state charges initially totaled 34 criminal counts that a Manhattan jury found him guilty of in May 2024 [1] [5]. New York law treats falsifying business records as a misdemeanor unless done to further another crime, in which case it can be a felony — the indictment and trial rested on the theory that the entries masked a scheme to influence the election [6].
2. The trial, conviction and unusual sentencing outcome
The trial ran six weeks, ending with a conviction on all 34 counts on May 30, 2024, which made him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony; sentencing was delayed several times and, after his 2024 election victory and related litigation, Judge Juan Merchan issued an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025 — a rare sentence that left the conviction on the books while imposing no fine or jail time [2] [1]. Court scheduling and sentencing were repeatedly affected by motions tied to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and other procedural filings [6] [2].
3. The immunity argument and appellate fights
After the Supreme Court’s ruling that recognized broad immunity for certain official acts by a sitting president, Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence admitted at trial involved protected official acts and thus the conviction was “fatally marred,” prompting appeals and fresh federal review requests [3]. A federal appeals panel ordered further scrutiny by a district judge on whether the immunity ruling affected the state case, and the U.S. government later urged that the conviction should be thrown out on grounds that it relied on improper evidence and legal theories potentially preempted by federal law [4] [5].
4. Competing legal and political narratives
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office and its supporters framed the prosecution as a straightforward application of New York law to unlawful bookkeeping tied to a campaign‑related payment [5]. Trump and his team have described the case as politically motivated and have framed appeals in stark terms — calling the trial a “witch hunt” and pressing constitutional claims tied to presidential immunity [3]. Reuters noted the appeals panel included judges appointed by Democratic presidents and highlighted political implications as Trump returned to the White House after the election, underscoring how legal disputes intersect with partisan debate [4].
5. What the discharge means and open legal questions
An unconditional discharge spared Trump from any additional punishment but “left the conviction on the books,” a procedural outcome aimed by the sentencing judge at minimizing disruption as Trump prepared to begin a second White House term [4]. Available sources do not mention the conviction being expunged or vacated at that time; instead, appeals remained active and federal courts were asked to determine how the immunity rulings and federal preemption arguments should apply to a state prosecution [4] [5].
6. Why coverage continues and what to watch next
Court filings and appeals remain the focal point: Trump’s legal team is seeking reversal or removal of the case to federal court and continues to press immunity and evidentiary claims, while the U.S. government and the Manhattan DA have argued the conviction should stand or be reconsidered under ordinary appellate review [3] [5]. Key developments to watch are appellate rulings on immunity‑related evidence, any state‑court motions to vacate the conviction, and whether further federal intervention changes the status of the conviction that remains recorded after the January 10, 2025 discharge [4] [1].
Limitations: reporting in these sources focuses on the falsified‑records counts tied to the Daniels payment and procedural appeals; available sources do not provide every court filing or the complete record of trial testimony here, so some evidentiary specifics and later appellate outcomes beyond the cited items are not covered in this summary [1] [4].