New York Appeals Court Hears Trump Challenge To Hush-Money Conviction

New York's intermediate appeals court is set to hear oral arguments Thursday on Donald Trump's bid to overturn his 2024 felony conviction for falsifying business records in the Manhattan hush-money case, a proceeding that could reshape the only criminal verdict so far against the former president.^[1]

A four-judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Manhattan will hear from Trump's new lead appellate lawyer, Robert Giuffra, and attorneys from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, with both sides expected to focus heavily on whether state prosecutors overstepped by using New York law to bring what Trump's team insists is effectively a federal election case.^[1]

The appeal stems from Trump's May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts, after a Manhattan jury unanimously found he falsified business records to hide reimbursements to his former fixer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment to adult-film actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. Prosecutors argued at trial that the reimbursement checks and ledger entries were falsely labeled as legal expenses to conceal a scheme to influence the election by burying damaging allegations, elevating otherwise misdemeanor recordkeeping violations to felonies because they were committed to further another crime.^[1]

In briefs previewing Thursday's arguments, Giuffra contends the case never should have been brought under New York's business-records statute because the alleged wrongdoing centered on campaign-related conduct that falls under federal election law, which he says preempts state prosecution. He also argues that the trial violated presidential immunity by allowing evidence and legal theories tied to Trump's time in the White House and that prosecutors failed to prove he intended to defraud anyone when the Trump Organization recorded the reimbursements.^[1]

Bragg's office counters that the hush-money arrangement was unofficial conduct that amounted to a conspiracy to deceive voters, regulators, and tax authorities, and therefore sits squarely within state criminal authority. Prosecutors point to multiple prior rulings, including in related civil and removal proceedings, that found the scheme did not involve Trump's constitutional duties as president and that the alleged conduct could be prosecuted without intruding on the presidency. They also say the jury heard ample evidence that Trump understood and directed the false records to mask the true nature of the payments.^[1]

A separate effort by Trump's legal team to move the case to federal court was rejected several times by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who ruled that disguising hush-money reimbursements as ordinary business expenses was personal and political, not an official presidential act that could justify federal jurisdiction or immunity. His decisions, which emphasized that the bookkeeping entries were created at the Trump Organization and not as part of any Oval Office duty, now serve as a key precedent Bragg's lawyers cite as they urge the state appeals court to leave the conviction in place.

1. CBS News