Current status of Trump's 34 convictions appeal

1. Federal panel gives Trump a procedural lifeline — what happened

A three‑judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to reexamine whether the Manhattan conviction should be moved from state to federal court because the Supreme Court’s 2024 presidential‑immunity decision may mean evidence admitted at trial related to official acts was protected, creating jurisdictional and evidentiary questions the lower court needs to address ^{[1] [5]}. The appeals court did not itself decide guilt or innocence and explicitly “express[ed] no view” on Hellerstein’s ultimate ruling; it ordered further analysis and fact‑finding ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Parallel state appeal seeks to vacate the 34 convictions on multiple grounds

Independently of the federal maneuver, Trump’s lawyers filed a lengthy appeal in New York’s Appellate Division arguing the trial was “fatally marred,” that the judge erred in admitting testimony and evidence tied to his time as president, and that the prosecution used an improper legal theory to stack misdemeanors into felonies — their five‑point, conventional state‑court challenge to the May 2024 verdict ^{[3] [8]}.

3. The Department of Justice’s unusual involvement and competing viewpoints

In a notable development the DOJ filed a brief in Manhattan supporting Trump’s view that the conviction should be thrown out if it rested on evidence of official acts, arguing the introduction of such evidence “can never be harmless” and that federal law may preempt the state theory — an argument that aligns with Trump’s immunity claim and gives the federal petition extra weight ^[4]. Observers differ on the import: some outlets describe the appeals panel’s action as a “legal win” for Trump that could open a path to vacating the conviction; others emphasize the limited, procedural nature of the order and note judges haven’t ruled on the core merits ^{[5] [2]}.

4. What the appeals panel did not do — limits of the win

The 2nd Circuit did not instantly transfer the case to federal court, dismiss the convictions, or rule that the evidence was immunized; it only sent the question back to the district judge to evaluate whether the Supreme Court’s immunity framework requires federal review and, if so, whether that review should be allowed ^{[2] [1]}. The panel also declined to address directly whether the evidence so tainted the trial that the verdict must be set aside; those are issues likely for additional proceedings ^[7].

5. Timeline and possible outcomes — multiple tracks, years to resolution

There are two concurrent dockets: (A) Trump’s state appellate brief asking the New York Appellate Division to vacate the convictions on traditional trial‑error grounds, a process that “could take years” ^[9], and (B) the federal procedure revived by the 2nd Circuit that could either send the question back to state court, move the matter into federal court for immunity review, or ultimately leave the conviction intact. Any final resolution could involve more appeals up to the Supreme Court, meaning the practical status of the 34‑count conviction may remain unsettled for some time ^{[9] [10]}.

6. How different outlets frame the significance — competing narratives

Conservative‑leaning coverage frames the appeals panel’s order as a major victory and a clear path to tossing the convictions ^{[5] [11]}. More centrist or liberal outlets emphasize the procedural, not dispositive, nature of the ruling and stress that state appellate proceedings are ongoing and could still sustain the verdict ^{[7] [9]}. The DOJ brief — an atypical posture that supports throwing out a state conviction on immunity grounds — adds an institutional dimension that complicates simple political narratives ^[4].

7. Bottom line for readers: conviction remains on the books but is under sustained legal attack

As of the latest reporting summarised here, the May 2024 verdict and its 34 felony counts remain on the record, but they are subject to two separate—and potentially converging—appeals paths: the conventional state appeal seeking reversal for trial errors and the federal procedural route reopened by the 2nd Circuit to test whether presidential‑immunity doctrine requires federal review or dismissal ^{[3] [1]}. Neither path has yet produced a final judicial decision vacating or reinstating the convictions; available sources do not mention an ultimate, final ruling overturning or affirming the 34 convictions at this time ^{[2] [3]}.