Was trump charged with 34 of felonies

1. What the 34 counts actually were

The New York indictment filed by the Manhattan District Attorney charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a felony offense under New York law when records are falsified to commit or conceal another crime; prosecutors tied the counts to alleged efforts to conceal hush‑money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election and to related bookkeeping entries that prosecutors say were false ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Indictment, arraignment and jury verdict — the procedural arc

The grand jury returned the sealed indictment in early 2023, the charges were unsealed at arraignment, and a New York State Supreme Court jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts after a six‑week trial that concluded with a unanimous verdict in May 2024, making him the first former U.S. president convicted of felony crimes in that moment of legal history ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

3. Sentence, legal aftermath and current status

Although convicted on 34 felony counts, the judge later issued an unconditional discharge — meaning Trump remains a convicted felon under the record but was not given further penalties such as jail time, fines or probation — and his legal team pursued appeals; reporting notes the discharge and ongoing appellate filings that followed the conviction ^{[6] [5]}.

4. What the charges allege and evidence cited by prosecutors

Prosecutors presented a theory that false entries and bookkeeping were part of a scheme to hide payments totaling roughly $420,000 intended to keep Daniels from going public, and they relied on documentary evidence and witness testimony including invoices, checks, bank statements and testimony from former associates to prove the falsified records and the alleged intent to conceal ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Defense position and political context

Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing, framed the prosecution as politically motivated, and argued evidentiary and constitutional errors through the appeals process; his lawyers contested aspects of the trial record and argued the case involved political speech and official acts, a view that has informed filings at multiple appellate levels even as lower courts and the Supreme Court rejected some pre‑trial challenges ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Caveats, legal nuance and what reporting does not resolve

Reporting uniformly establishes the charge count and the conviction on those counts ^{[2] [9]}, but questions remain subject to appellate review and the broader legal significance — for instance, how the discharge interacts with practical collateral consequences and whether higher courts will alter the verdict or remedy — matters that the cited sources note were in active litigation and not finally resolved in all respects at the time of their publication ^{[6] [5]}.