Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which legal standards and evidence led to Trump's convictions in each case?
Executive summary
Donald Trump was convicted in New York in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of first‑degree falsifying business records tied to payments alleged to conceal damaging information during the 2016 campaign; Judge Juan Merchan later imposed an unconditional discharge in January 2025, and Trump has repeatedly appealed, including arguing presidential‑immunity grounds [1] [2] [3]. Federal actors including the U.S. Justice Department have since filed briefs saying the conviction should be overturned as premised on improper evidence or preempted legal theories, and appellate courts have been asked to revisit how the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling affects the case [4] [5] [6].
1. The charge that produced the conviction: falsifying business records
A Manhattan jury in May 2024 found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree concerning reimbursements and record‑keeping tied to a payment to Stormy Daniels; prosecutors framed those entries as having been altered to conceal an underlying unlawful purpose related to the 2016 election [1] [7]. Media summaries and legal trackers characterize those counts as state‑law felonies because, under New York law, falsifying business records can be upgraded to a felony when done to conceal another crime [8] [7]. Available sources do not detail the exact statutory text or jury instructions used at trial beyond noting the nature of the falsified records [8] [7].
2. Core evidence relied on at trial
Reporting indicates the prosecution relied on documentary evidence of payments and accounting entries, witness testimony including from former aides such as Hope Hicks, and the sequence of reimbursements that prosecutors said masked an illicit purpose [5] [2]. Trump’s legal team argues the trial improperly admitted testimony and documents reflecting official acts from his presidency—material they say is protected by the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity ruling—so they contend some of the most damaging evidence should not have been in the courtroom [5] [2]. The Manhattan DA’s office maintains the evidence did not implicate the kind of official‑act immunity the Supreme Court described [6].
3. How the immunity question changed the legal landscape
After the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling broadly about presidential immunity for official acts, Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence touching on his time in office should have been excluded and that the conviction was therefore tainted; judges and appeals panels have been asked to determine whether the immunity decision requires revisiting the verdict [5] [6] [2]. A New York judge in December 2024 rejected an early bid to vacate the conviction on immunity grounds, and later courts have sent the case back for further consideration of whether federal review is appropriate under the new immunity precedent [1] [6].
4. Government and counter‑arguments on appeal
Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a friend‑of‑the‑court brief arguing Trump’s hush‑money conviction should be thrown out because it rested on what DOJ called improper evidence and legal theory preempted by federal law—an unusual alignment in which federal authorities urged overturning a state conviction [4]. Manhattan prosecutors, by contrast, argue it is too late for federal courts to intervene and maintain the evidence fits outside the Supreme Court’s immunity protection [6]. These competing federal‑state positions have prompted appellate panels to authorize additional review rather than immediately foreclosing appellate remedies [6] [4].
5. Sentence and practical effect
Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, meaning no jail time, fines, or probation were imposed; nonetheless, the conviction remains the legal focal point for appeals and for questions about whether presidential immunity or other doctrines should nullify the verdict [3] [1]. Available sources do not state that the conviction was vacated; instead they describe ongoing appellate litigation and motions seeking to set aside the jury’s verdict [1] [5].
6. What the records and reporting do not (yet) say
Public reporting in these sources does not provide full trial transcripts, exact jury instructions, or a granular catalog of every piece of evidence the jury relied upon; it also does not offer a definitive appellate outcome as of the latest items here—only that appeals and immunity arguments remain active [5] [6] [4]. For precise statutory citations, full trial exhibits, or the ultimate appellate ruling, those documents would need to be consulted directly; current reporting has summarized key arguments rather than reproducing every legal instrument [8] [7].
Summary assessment: the New York conviction rested on falsified corporate records tied to a hush‑money payment and was supported at trial by documentary and witness evidence; its survival now depends on appellate review focused on whether the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity framework or other federal preemption principles require exclusion of evidence or reversal—an outcome contested by both state prosecutors and the federal government [1] [5] [4] [6].