Did the court case involving trump and prince andrew find them both guilty
Executive summary
No single court case in the provided reporting found both Donald Trump and Prince Andrew guilty of the same crime; Trump has faced criminal convictions and ongoing appeals related to a 2024 New York hush‑money trial while Prince Andrew’s claims were civil and were litigated separately with his high‑profile civil case moving toward trial or settlement discussions [1] [2]. Sources show Trump was found guilty at a Manhattan trial in 2024 on hush‑money related counts and has since pursued appeals and immunity arguments [3] [1]; Prince Andrew faced a separate civil suit tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims that a judge declined to dismiss and which raised the prospect of trial or settlement [2] [4].
1. Two very different legal tracks — criminal for Trump, civil for Andrew
Donald Trump’s most prominent case in the sources is a criminal prosecution out of Manhattan resulting in a 2024 conviction on multiple felony counts tied to alleged hush‑money payments; that conviction has produced appeals and litigation over whether presidential immunity or removal to federal court affects venue and sentencing [3] [1]. Prince Andrew’s matter in the sources is a civil claim by Virginia Giuffre alleging sexual misconduct connected to Jeffrey Epstein; U.S. federal judges resisted early efforts to dismiss that civil case and steered it toward trial or settlement discussions rather than criminal prosecution of the duke [2] [4].
2. What “guilty” means in these contexts
A criminal guilty verdict, such as the Manhattan jury’s 2024 finding against Trump reported in the press, carries criminal penalties and a different standard of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) than civil cases, which decide liability on a “preponderance of the evidence” and typically result in monetary damages or settlements rather than imprisonment [3] [1]. Prince Andrew’s U.S. proceedings, as reported, were civil claims where the court rejected dismissal and left factual disputes for trial or resolution; the reporting does not show a criminal conviction of Andrew [2] [4].
3. Appeals, immunity claims and shifting venues — Trump’s post‑verdict strategy
After the Manhattan conviction, Trump has pursued multiple legal routes: appeals of the conviction itself, requests to move or re‑examine the case in light of presidential immunity rulings, and related federal litigation over whether his status as president affects where or how the case proceeds. Courts and appeals panels have at times granted procedural reviews or ordered reconsideration of venue and immunity questions [3] [1]. Reporting shows judges and appellate panels have been involved in reconsidering aspects of Trump’s case rather than producing a final, unappealable resolution in the sources provided [1] [3].
4. Prince Andrew’s case: civil strategy, settlement pressure and reputational consequences
Manhattan federal judges refused to dismiss Giuffre’s civil complaint against Prince Andrew, indicating factual issues (such as whether a prior Epstein‑Giuffre settlement barred the claim) should be resolved at trial — a ruling that made an out‑of‑court settlement plausible but did not equate to a criminal finding [2] [4]. The reporting also documents reputational fallout for Andrew, including public sanctions by the royal family and removal of titles in separate coverage tied to his Epstein association, but that sequence reflects public and institutional responses rather than a criminal conviction in U.S. courts [5] [2].
5. How media coverage can conflate outcomes — watch terminology
News outlets and summaries sometimes juxtapose both men because of their high profiles and mutual links to Jeffrey Epstein’s social circle, but the underlying legal predicates differ: one set of proceedings is criminal with a jury conviction reported (Trump’s Manhattan hush‑money trial), the other is civil litigation where dismissal was denied and trial or settlement remained possible (Andrew’s Giuffre claim) [3] [2]. Readers should note that headlines suggesting both were “found guilty” conflate criminal verdicts with unresolved civil claims or institutional sanctions — the available reporting does not support a joint criminal conviction of both men [3] [2].
6. Limitations of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources do not mention any single case that tried Trump and Prince Andrew together or found them both criminally guilty of the same charges; they cover separate dossiers and court actions [3] [2]. Important gaps remain in the supplied results: for example, up‑to‑date outcomes of every pending appeal in Trump’s post‑2024 litigation and the final disposition (trial verdict or settlement details) of Andrew’s civil case are not fully reported in these excerpts [1] [2]. Where sources disagree about motives or legal strategy, that debate is reflected in court filings and appellate orders cited by the outlets [1] [3].
If you want, I can pull the latest status on Trump’s appeals and Prince Andrew’s civil case from specific news outlets listed here or expand into timelines showing what happened in each proceeding and when.