What criminal cases against former President Donald J. Trump were ongoing or resolved after May 2024, and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
After May 2024, the most concrete criminal adjudication tied to Donald J. Trump was his May 30, 2024 conviction in Manhattan on 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records; that verdict produced appeals and post‑verdict litigation but no long term incarceration immediately imposed by the trial judge [1] [2] [3]. The other major prosecutions—two federal matters handled by special counsel Jack Smith and a state prosecution in Fulton County, Georgia—saw procedural upheaval, dismissals or disqualifications after Trump’s 2024 election victory and along the way triggered constitutional fights over presidential immunity [4] [1] [5].
1. New York hush‑money trial: conviction, sentencing signals and appeals
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts tied to falsifying business records for payments related to Stormy Daniels on May 30, 2024, making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony [1] [2] [6]. The state trial concluded with a conviction but the trial judge signaled at sentencing that he did not plan to impose prison time, and the conviction immediately became the subject of appeals and post‑trial motions that continued into the fall and beyond [3] [7]. Reporting and archival summaries note that in the aftermath the case generated motions invoking state procedural grounds and raised questions about enforcement while Trump pursued and won reelection [8] [4].
2. Federal classified‑documents case: delays, dismissal and the immunity debate
The special counsel investigation into classified documents at Mar‑a‑Lago produced a sprawling indictment, but its prosecution timeline was repeatedly altered by questions of presidential immunity and judicial rulings; parts of that litigation were stayed while the U.S. Supreme Court considered immunity issues and the case was then remanded, and following Trump’s 2024 election the Justice Department moved to dismiss without prejudice consistent with its policy against prosecuting a sitting president [4] [1] [2]. Separate reporting states that Judge Aileen Cannon at one point dismissed an iteration of the documents case in mid‑2024 on constitutional grounds related to Smith’s appointment, though that ruling itself became part of appeals and procedural back‑and‑forth [1].
3. January 6 federal prosecution: immunity rulings, remand and dismissal
The D.C. federal prosecution for conduct around January 6th produced one of the highest‑profile immunity fights; an appeals court rejected blanket immunity but the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision carved a narrower path—holding a president may have immunity for official acts but not for unofficial ones—and remanded factual questions to the trial court [1]. Judge Tanya Chutkan later granted the government’s unopposed motion to dismiss the D.C. case after Trump’s election, a dismissal characterized in docket summaries as without prejudice and tied to the Justice Department’s policy decisions about charging a sitting president [4].
4. Fulton County, Georgia: pause, prosecutor disqualification and continuing uncertainty
The Georgia indictment connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 result moved through a separate state track; the case was paused while appellate panels considered a challenge to District Attorney Fani Willis’s conduct, and on Dec. 19, 2024 the Georgia Court of Appeals granted a motion disqualifying Willis from the prosecution, an order that materially altered the pace and posture of the Georgia prosecution [4] [1]. Subsequent appellate activity over the prosecutor’s disqualification and other procedural claims continued, leaving that state prosecution in an unsettled posture after May 2024 [1].
5. The broader legal landscape and competing narratives
Taken together, the post‑May‑2024 landscape shows one firm criminal verdict (New York) overlaid with two federal matters and a Georgia case that were reshaped by high‑stakes procedural rulings, immunity doctrine, dismissal motions after the 2024 election and prosecutorial disqualifications; legal reporting from Lawfare, Brennan Center, Reuters, PBS/Frontline, Ballotpedia and others catalog these outcomes and the ensuing appeals [4] [5] [3] [2] [9]. Critics of the prosecutions emphasize perceived politicization and constitutional concerns about separating presidential acts from private conduct, while proponents of the prosecutions point to jury findings and statutory violations in New York and to the need to test alleged misconduct in court—both narratives are reflected across the cited public reporting [2] [5] [1]. Where source material does not reach consensus—especially on final appellate dispositions beyond late 2024—this account reflects only the documented outcomes and not conjecture about unresolved appeals [4] [8].