In which cases was Donald Trump convicted, and what felonies were listed in each conviction?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald J. Trump has been convicted in one criminal case: a New York state trial that produced a jury verdict finding him guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to payments surrounding the 2016 campaign [1] [2]. Other major criminal matters that have been widely reported — including Georgia election charges and two federal prosecutions — did not result in convictions during the period covered by the sources: Georgia’s case was dropped by a successor prosecutor, and federal cases were either unresolved, dismissed, or affected by immunity and procedural rulings [3] [4] [5].
1. The New York “hush‑money” conviction — what was charged and when the jury decided
In Manhattan, a criminal jury found Trump guilty on May 30, 2024, of 34 counts in a case brought by the Manhattan District Attorney alleging falsified business records related to payments to Stormy Daniels intended to conceal damaging information before the 2016 election; those 34 counts were felonies because prosecutors argued the records were falsified to conceal another unlawful act tied to the election-period scheme [1] [6] [2]. The conviction marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of felonies, according to contemporaneous reporting and summaries of the trial [1] [4].
2. The specific felony counts: “falsifying business records in the first degree”
All 34 counts carried the statutory label of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York law, meaning prosecutors said the records were not merely inaccurate bookkeeping but were altered with intent to conceal another crime — in this instance, an unlawful scheme to influence the 2016 election via payments and reimbursements described as legal expenses [2] [7] [6]. News outlets and the Manhattan DA’s office described the counts as connected to reimbursements to Michael Cohen and the categorization of those disbursements in corporate and personal records [6] [8].
3. Sentencing, disposition, and practical consequences of the conviction
Although the jury returned guilty verdicts on all 34 counts, Judge Juan M. Merchan later imposed an unconditional discharge at sentencing, which left the convictions on the record while imposing no jail time, fines, or additional penalties; reporting framed that outcome as sparing Trump immediate punishment even while affirming his status as a convicted felon [9] [4] [10]. The unconditional discharge and concurrent legal moves — including appeals — meant the conviction remained contested in the courts and politically consequential even without immediate penal consequences [9] [1].
4. Other notable criminal matters — no convictions in the federal or Georgia cases covered here
Beyond New York, the major prosecutions publicized in the same period did not produce convictions: the Georgia election‑interference indictment was ultimately dropped by a successor prosecutor who declined to proceed, ending that case without a trial conviction [3], and the two federal prosecutions (special‑counsel matters, including classified‑documents and Jan. 6‑related allegations) were not recorded here as resulting in criminal convictions — some were pending, some were affected by court rulings on immunity or prosecution policy, and reporting cautioned that those matters remained unresolved or subject to appeal and legal maneuvering [4] [5] [11].
5. Appeals, disputes over venue and immunity, and competing narratives
Following the New York verdict, Trump’s legal team pursued appeals and argued for federal handling or other procedural relief; courts and commentators differed about the scope of those challenges, and federal appellate actions and Supreme Court rulings on immunity in other contexts shaped which cases could proceed — a factual landscape in which the New York conviction stands distinct as the lone completed jury verdict while other indictments shifted status through dismissals, stays, or unresolved appeals [1] [4] [7]. Sources note that defenders framed the New York prosecution as politically motivated and challenged witness credibility, while prosecutors and the Manhattan DA maintained the falsified‑records counts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt [6] [8].