Trump team urges New York appeals court to overturn hush money verdict
Lawyers argue federal campaign finance laws were improperly used in the state trial, while prosecutors maintain the theory was central to the conspiracy charge.
By Ella Cox ·
A five-judge panel in New York heard arguments on Thursday regarding the validity of Donald Trump’s 2024 criminal conviction for falsifying business records.
The legal battle traces back to a May 2024 jury verdict that found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts. The charges stem from a $130,000 payment made by his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film performer Stormy Daniels in 2016. Prosecutors alleged the payment was intended to keep details of an alleged sexual encounter from the public ahead of the presidential election. Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, categorizing the payments as legal expenses. He was the first former and current U.S. president to receive a criminal conviction. Although the verdict did not result in immediate punishment or prevent his return to the White House, it remains a central point of contention in his legal strategy.
On Thursday, Trump’s legal team argued that the conviction should be reversed because prosecutors relied on a shaky combination of state and federal offenses. Robert Giuffra Jr., a lead attorney for the defense, told the court that state prosecutors had no standing to tie the case to the Federal Election Campaign Act. He described this legal theory as the most obvious ground for reversal. The judges questioned the Manhattan district attorney’s office on this point. Justice Troy Webber asked whether the prosecution relied on the federal act to prove the falsifying business records charge. Assistant District Attorney Steven Wu responded that it was only partially relied upon, stating it was important to show the purpose of the falsified records was to conceal the conspiracy.
The appeal also addresses whether jurors should have heard testimony about Trump’s official conduct during his first term. Defense filings from October argue that when a president addresses the nation to defend himself or discusses communications with aides, he is performing constitutional duties protected by immunity. The Manhattan district attorney’s office counters that the evidence was fair game, noting that some records were public and the conversations were unofficial conduct. Steven Wu wrote in a July filing that a president’s discussions about a private matter, even with a White House advisor, do not constitute official acts for which the president is immune. He added that a mountain of other evidence supported the verdict.
Political dynamics influenced the filings, with the defense arguing the case resulted from immense political pressure on a Democratic prosecutor. The trial attorneys also contended that payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses and not hidden campaign spending. This distinction is critical because New York law requires intent to commit or conceal a separate crime for business record falsification to be a felony.
While the state appeal proceeds, Trump’s team is also pursuing a dismissal in federal court based on immunity. A federal judge rejected that motion in August, marking the third time the request has been denied. Attorneys are currently appealing that decision, with oral arguments scheduled for November 16.
