Which court handled the case listing 34 charges against Trump and what rulings have been issued?
Executive summary
The case listing 34 charges against Donald Trump was the Manhattan (New York) criminal case for falsifying business records; a jury convicted him on all 34 counts in May 2024 and a judge issued an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025 (sources: [3]; [4]; p1_s5). Appeals and related federal-immunity questions followed: federal courts and the Supreme Court weighed presidential immunity issues that affected review of the conviction [1] [2].
1. Which court handled the 34-count case — the Manhattan hush‑money prosecution
The indictment charging Trump with 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records was brought and tried in Manhattan; the New York criminal trial ran in April–May 2024 and resulted in conviction on all 34 counts [3] [4] [2]. Reporting and trackers identify the prosecution as the Manhattan District Attorney’s case brought by Alvin Bragg [1] [2].
2. The jury verdict and immediate aftermath
A New York jury found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts in May 2024, making him the first former or sitting U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges in state court [4] [2]. Sentencing was set, delayed, and then—after post‑election developments—resulted in an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, meaning the court imposed no jail time or fine in that proceeding [3] [5].
3. How federal immunity decisions intersected with the New York case
Federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings on presidential immunity that complicated review of the New York conviction. The Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision limited immunity to “official acts,” creating questions about which acts counted as official and how that ruling affected state prosecutions; federal judges reviewed the impact on the Manhattan case during appeals [1] [2]. A three‑judge federal appeals panel directed closer review by a federal judge of how the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling affected the case [1].
4. Appellate activity and contested rulings
After conviction, defense filings and appeals sought to overturn the verdict or block sentencing on immunity grounds; courts repeatedly considered but did not uniformly throw out the New York conviction as of the sources provided. The appellate process involved federal and state judges reviewing whether immunity and other legal doctrines should alter the outcome or the sentence [1] [2].
5. Broader legal context and related dismissals in other jurisdictions
Across other prosecutions, courts and prosecutors issued disparate rulings: federal special counsel Jack Smith dropped separate federal cases after Trump’s election due to Department of Justice policy concerning sitting presidents [6]. In Georgia, state appellate rulings disqualified the local prosecutor, and that case was later dismissed by a new prosecutor [3] [6]. Reporting and trackers show many parallel proceedings that affected the overall count of convictions, dismissals and outstanding charges [4] [6].
6. Conflicting narratives and political overlay
Sources note competing narratives: prosecutors presented the New York case as a lawful criminal prosecution for falsifying business records; Trump’s team framed the proceedings as political and raised immunity defenses that moved through federal courts [2] [1]. The timing of the unconditional discharge after Trump’s electoral victory drew criticism and praise along partisan lines in the press [3] [5].
7. Limitations in the public record and what available sources do not say
Available sources do not mention specific internal deliberations at the Manhattan DA’s office beyond public filings, nor do they provide full transcripts of all appellate arguments in a single consolidated place in these excerpts (not found in current reporting). Some follow‑up actions and later appellate rulings are summarized differently across outlets; readers should expect ongoing legal papers and opinions beyond these summaries [3] [2].
8. Why this matters going forward
The Manhattan conviction and the subsequent unconditional discharge, combined with Supreme Court immunity guidance and parallel dismissals, establish precedent and procedural roadmaps for how criminal charges against a president or former president are litigated and reviewed [1] [2]. Courts’ rulings on immunity, venue and prosecutorial conflicts will continue to shape whether convictions stand, are vacated, or are otherwise affected by executive‑power doctrines [1].