How did prosecutors and defense attorneys react to the New York Court of Appeals ruling on Trump's conviction 2024 2025?

1. Defense counsel framed the rulings as vindication and a route to vacate the conviction

Trump’s lawyers characterized recent appellate activity as proof that the case “should never have seen the inside of a courtroom,” arguing the trial was “fatally marred” by evidence they say is protected by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and that judges who oversaw the trial erred in not recusing ^{[1] [4]}. The defense pressed two tracks: a conventional state‑court appeal to have the verdict reversed by the New York Appellate Division and a bid to transfer the case to federal court so the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling could be applied to erase the conviction ^{[5] [4]}. In filings and public statements, the defense has urged that evidence of “official acts” introduced at trial cannot be used against a president and that the trial’s admission of that material requires vacatur — a legal argument echoed across multiple outlets reporting the appeal ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Prosecutors and the Manhattan DA’s office have pushed back, defending the conviction and trial choices

Manhattan prosecutors declined immediate comment in several reports, but their posture in court papers and at trial has been consistent: the hush‑money payments were private, non‑official acts and the admission of contested evidence was lawful under New York law ^{[5] [2]}. Judge Juan Merchan, who presided at trial and later sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, wrote that the payments were “outside the bounds of executive authority,” an explicit judicial finding that underpins the prosecution’s view that immunity does not apply ^[5]. While the state appellate process is ongoing, prosecutors have signaled they will respond to the defense’s appellate arguments and defend the jury’s verdict ^[7].

3. Federal appeals court reaction: procedural win for Trump, but no ruling on immunity merits

A three‑judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a lower federal judge to reconsider whether the case should be moved to federal court, finding that the district judge had erred by not considering “important issues relevant” to Trump’s removal request ^{[2] [8]}. Crucially, the appeals panel “express[ed] no view” on how the judge should ultimately rule, leaving the substantive immunity question unresolved and signaling that the procedural door is open but not guaranteeing reversal ^[3]. That mixed outcome has been seized by defense lawyers as a meaningful win while leaving prosecutors room to press that the core evidence and verdict remain valid ^{[2] [3]}.

4. The Justice Department’s unexpected alignment with the defense added a new, controversial dimension

In an extraordinary move, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a friend‑of‑the‑court brief urging New York’s appeals court to reverse the conviction, adopting arguments that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision makes the trial’s admission of presidential‑act evidence improper and potentially not harmless ^{[9] [10]}. Reuters and Bloomberg reported that DOJ lawyers acknowledged the trial predated the Supreme Court ruling but contended that the constitutional implications still require reversal ^{[9] [10]}. That federal intervention, unusual because it sided with the defendant in a state criminal appeal, amplified public debate about institutional motives and raised questions about separation between federal and state prosecutorial prerogatives ^{[9] [10]}.

5. What the courts still must decide, and why reactions remain polarized

Lower courts must now sort out whether a sitting or former president’s allegedly private conduct can be retroactively treated as official acts for immunity purposes and whether procedural timing prevents a transfer to federal court after trial ^{[5] [3]}. Defense counsel argue the Supreme Court’s immunity doctrine requires vacatur; prosecutors and some judges emphasize that the payments were private and that the defense’s delay in seeking removal undermines its claims ^{[5] [3]}. Observers therefore see the appellate procedural rulings as opening a new chapter but not as resolving whether the 34 felony convictions will stand — a reality reflected in the cautious language used by the appeals panel and reported by mainstream outlets ^{[3] [11]}.

6. Political and institutional subtext shaping legal rhetoric

Both sides framed their legal arguments with political language: the defense called the prosecution a “witch hunt” and “weaponization of government,” while prosecutors stressed the rule of law and the jury’s verdict ^{[7] [6]}. The DOJ’s brief introduced another institutional actor into what had been a largely state‑led defense‑prosecution contest, prompting commentators to highlight potential political optics and questions about federal motives ^{[9] [10]}. Available sources do not mention explicit internal DOJ motivations beyond the legal arguments presented in filings; however, the remarkable step of filing a brief in support of the defendant is itself a fact that shaped the tenor of reactions reported across outlets ^{[9] [10]}.

In sum, defense teams hailed recent appellate moves and the DOJ brief as major momentum toward erasing the 2024 conviction, while prosecutors and several judges emphasized procedural limits and factual findings that support the verdict. The appellate process now underway will determine whether those competing claims ultimately nullify, uphold or further complicate the historic conviction ^{[2] [3] [9]}.