Lawyers for President Trump are set to ask a New York appeals court Thursday to overturn his May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to a 2016 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.1,2,3
A unanimous jury found Trump guilty after prosecutors said his company reimbursed his then-attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment Cohen made days before the 2016 election in exchange for Daniels' silence about an alleged sexual encounter years earlier, which Trump has denied. He was given an unconditional discharge in early January 2025 as president-elect, meaning he remained a convicted felon but received no jail time, fine or other penalty, and his lawyers have since pressed state and federal courts to unwind the verdict.1,2
Trump's attorneys and lawyers for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will each have 15 minutes to answer questions from the Appellate Division, First Department, New York's mid-level appeals panel. Each side has indicated the case is destined for the state's highest court, called the Court of Appeals, and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court.1,3
Trump's legal team has changed since trial, with former defense attorney Todd Blanche now serving as U.S. attorney general and another former defense attorney, Emil Bove III, now a federal judge. His new personal lawyers continued the trial arguments in filings, with attorney Robert Giuffra, co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell, opening an Oct. 16 filing with the line the case "should have never been brought."1
Trump's lawyers argued the payment should have been subject to federal election laws that they said preempt state prosecutions, that prosecutors violated presidential immunity and that prosecutors failed to show Trump had an "intent to defraud." They also argued there was only "weak" evidence Trump even knew about Cohen's dealings at the time, and his trial attorneys said the payments to Cohen were legal expenses meant to avoid embarrassing Trump's family.1,2
In the Oct. 16 filing, Giuffra wrote, "The question here is whether the White House statements and strategy introduced at trial in this criminal case—responding to public allegations of personal wrongdoing bearing directly on the President's integrity and fitness for office—were official," A spokesman for Trump's legal team said a 2024 Supreme Court decision related to presidential immunity, "the federal and New York state Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan D.A. be overturned and dismissed."1
Lawyers for Bragg have characterized the 2016 plan as "a conspiracy to defraud the American public and government regulators." In a July brief, they wrote, "The criminal charges here arose from [Mr. Trump's] unofficial, non-presidential conduct—as multiple courts have already found," Saying the transactions were meant to keep unflattering information from voters, prosecutors argued Trump "orchestrated a conspiracy" that violated federal campaign finance laws, among others.1,2
The trial centered on money Daniels received from Cohen weeks before the 2016 election, which for a time bought her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. Trump's company reimbursed Cohen in 2017 and logged those payments as legal expenses. Trump maintains nothing sexual happened with Daniels, he has always denied wrongdoing, and he mentioned the case again on social media as recently as September. He was not expected to attend Thursday's session.1,2
While pursuing the state appeal, Trump has also sought to move the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge declined to move the case for a third time in August, and Trump's attorneys are appealing that decision, with arguments scheduled for 16 November. The state arguments come a week after the death of the judge who had presided over the parallel federal-court effort.1,2
That judge, Alvin Hellerstein, had repeatedly rejected Trump's arguments, including the claim that the reimbursements to Cohen were related to his official work as president. Hellerstein wrote, "Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to [Stormy Daniels] cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty," He added, "Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty."1
The state appeal turns on disputes over immunity, whether federal election law bars the state charges and whether intent was shown.1,2
Each side has indicated the case is destined for the state's highest court, called the Court of Appeals, and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court, alongside the separate federal-court appeal. The spokesperson said, "President Trump will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn,"1,2
