What are the key issues Trump’s lawyers raised on appeal of the 34 felony convictions?
Executive summary
Trump’s lawyers ask New York’s appeals court to overturn his 34-count conviction largely by arguing that key trial evidence and testimony were protected by the Supreme Court’s presidential-immunity decision and therefore should not have been admitted; they also argue prosecutors failed to prove intent to defraud and continue to press to move the case to federal court [1] [2] [3]. Lower-court judges have already found much of the conduct at trial to be personal rather than “official acts,” and a trial judge ruled the immunity issue did not change the verdict because any disputed evidence was “harmless” in light of the verdict [4].
1. Immunity claim: “Protected official acts” vs. personal conduct
The centerpiece of the appeal is that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity shields certain “official acts,” and Trump’s lawyers contend the trial was “fatally marred” by admission of evidence and testimony describing actions they now say were protected when performed as president — including testimony from former White House aides such as Hope Hicks [1] [3]. The trial judge, Juan Merchan, previously rejected that view, finding Trump’s conduct was personal (not official) and later said the disputed evidence was harmless given the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” [4]. That factual disagreement — whether particular acts were official and therefore immune — is central to the appeal and is why Trump has also sought to move the case into federal court for a fresh assessment [5] [3].
2. Jurisdictional strategy: removal to federal court
Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly pushed to remove the prosecution from New York state court into federal court, arguing federal courts are the appropriate venue to resolve immunity claims that follow from the Supreme Court decision; an appeals panel has revived this path by ordering reconsideration of earlier denials to move the case [5] [3]. Prosecutors and the trial judge countered that the state-court case involves private conduct (falsifying business records tied to hush-money payments) and that removal is not warranted because the immunity ruling does not strip the state court of jurisdiction [4] [5].
3. Evidentiary arguments and specific contested items
The defense’s filing singles out specific evidence it says should have been excluded as protected official conduct — for example, witness testimony about Trump’s time in the White House and public statements or social-media posts they say relate to his official tenure [1] [3]. While the defense frames admission of those items as outcome-determinative, Merchan concluded those items were either not immune or, if improperly admitted, were harmless in the context of overwhelming other proof [4]. Available sources do not list every contested exhibit or line of testimony in the appeal brief; reporting highlights Hope Hicks and other White House-linked testimony as examples [1].
4. Intent-to-defraud claim and elements of the offense
Another pillar of the appeal is substantive: Trump’s team says prosecutors “had no proof” that he acted with the requisite intent to defraud when the business records were falsified — a necessary element to elevate a routine bookkeeping in New York to first‑degree falsifying-business-records felonies [2]. Prosecutors, and the trial judge’s post-trial rulings, have rejected that contention, finding the record supported the jury’s conclusion that the payments and bookkeeping were part of an effort to influence the 2016 election [4]. Reporting indicates the defense continues to press this argument both as a factual sufficiency challenge and as tied to the immunity/jurisdictional attack [2] [3].
5. Procedural hurdles and competing legal views
The appeal faces procedural complexities: the immunity ruling left key questions for lower courts to resolve about what counts as an “official act” and how to handle collateral effects on evidence and verdicts [4] [3]. Some federal judges have been skeptical of moving the case given the trial court’s findings; others on appeals panels have signaled willingness to revisit the removal denials — showing there is no unanimity in how lower courts will apply the Supreme Court decision [5] [3]. The defense is pursuing both the state-court appeal and parallel federal avenues — a two-track strategy that could take years to resolve [6].
6. What success would mean, and limits of current reporting
If an appellate court finds substantial immunity-related error or grants removal and a federal court tosses the conviction, the 34-count verdict could be vacated or remanded for a new proceeding; conversely, appellate rejection would affirm the trial’s outcome and leave Merchan’s harmless-error rationale intact [1] [4] [3]. Current reporting documents the broad legal arguments (immunity, admissibility, intent, and removal) but does not provide a line-by-line catalogue of every piece of evidence the defense contests — for those details, the actual appeal filings would need to be reviewed [1] [2].