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.
What happened to Trump‘s 34 felony convictions?
Executive summary
Donald Trump was convicted by a New York jury on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the so‑called hush‑money case on May 30, 2024 [1]. After lengthy post‑trial litigation and scheduling delays, a New York judge sentenced him to an unconditional (also described as “conditional” in some reporting) discharge in January 2025 — a result that affirmed the convictions but imposed no jail time, fines, or probation [2] [3]. Multiple avenues of appeal and procedural moves remain active in state and federal courts, including arguments invoking presidential immunity and a recent U.S. government brief urging vacatur of the conviction [4] [5].
1. What the jury decided and why it mattered
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels and the way those payments were recorded, a verdict handed down May 30, 2024, that made him the first former U.S. president convicted of felony crimes [1] [6]. Prosecutors said the false entries were part of a scheme to conceal conduct that could influence the 2016 election; the conviction rested on documentary evidence and testimony presented over weeks of trial [7] [1].
2. Sentencing outcome: conviction affirmed, punishment avoided
Despite the guilty verdicts, the judge ultimately imposed an unconditional discharge at sentencing in January 2025, meaning the convictions remain on the record but Trump received no jail time, fines, or probation — effectively avoiding conventional criminal penalties [2] [3]. News coverage and legal explanations have emphasized that this is a rare sentencing result for felony convictions but legally permissible under New York practice [2].
3. Defense strategy: immunity and appeals
Trump’s lawyers have mounted multiple challenges seeking to overturn the verdict, chiefly arguing that a U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing broad presidential immunity for “official acts” should have barred parts of the prosecution and certain evidence, and thus requires reversal or dismissal [4] [8]. The defense has characterized the prosecution as politically motivated and faulted the judge’s rulings on jury instructions and evidence [8] [4].
4. Prosecution’s position and institutional posture
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has maintained the convictions were lawful and supported by voluminous evidence — invoices, checks, bank records, recordings and witness testimony presented at trial — and has defended the elevation of business‑records charges to felonies based on allegations that the falsifications were intended to conceal election‑related misconduct [7] [1].
5. Federal involvement and shifting legal terrain
After the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, federal actors entered the doctrinal fray: the U.S. Department of Justice filed a friend‑of‑the‑court brief arguing the New York conviction should be thrown out because it relied on evidence or a legal theory preempted by federal law, and a federal appeals court ordered reconsideration of whether the case belonged in federal rather than state court [5] [9]. Those developments complicate — but do not automatically erase — the state conviction recorded in New York courts.
6. What “convicted but discharged” means in practice
An unconditional discharge leaves the conviction intact on the record; it does not expunge the guilty verdict, but it spares the defendant the typical penalties. Reporting noted that the sentence affirmed Trump “is a convicted felon” while also making clear he “will face no further penalties, fines or any time in jail” under that discharge [2]. Available sources do not mention any immediate state action to expunge or vacate those convictions apart from the ongoing appeals and motions (not found in current reporting).
7. Ongoing legal trajectory and political implications
Appeals in New York’s appellate courts and parallel federal litigation raise the prospect the convictions could be modified, vacated, or otherwise revisited; the Justice Department’s recent brief supporting vacatur underscores an unusual cross‑government alignment with the defendant’s position [5]. At the same time, Manhattan prosecutors continue to defend the verdict and its factual record [7]. Observers across the political spectrum see stakes both legal and political: supporters of Trump view the case as politically motivated and seek reversal [10], while critics view the convictions — even without punishment — as a historic legal judgment [1].
8. Bottom line and reporting limits
The factual record in available reporting shows a May 2024 guilty verdict on 34 felony counts and a January 2025 unconditional discharge that left the convictions in place without further penalty [1] [2]. Multiple appeals and federal filings continue, and recent DOJ intervention argues the conviction should be thrown out; whether courts will vacate the convictions is unresolved in the cited sources [5]. Available sources do not mention any final appellate decision that has definitively overturned or permanently erased the 34 convictions (not found in current reporting).