Appeals judges appear split on upholding Trump's Manhattan hush-money conviction

The hearing

A five-judge panel of New York's Appellate Division, First Department, heard arguments on Thursday, 5 November, on whether to uphold Donald Trump's criminal conviction. The judges appeared split and have not yet ruled. Trump's lawyer Robert Giuffra and an attorney from the Manhattan district attorney's office clashed over prosecutors' use of an alleged violation of federal election law to raise what could have been a misdemeanor to a felony. Trump did not attend the session.

The conviction and the appeals

In May 2024 a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records over payments made to the adult film performer Stormy Daniels, a 130,000 dollar payment according to one report. The judge imposed an unconditional discharge, so Trump served no jail time despite the felony verdict. Trump denies any wrongdoing and has tried to overturn the verdict both through the appeal and by seeking to move the case to federal court. In August a federal judge rejected his third attempt to transfer the case, and Trump is now appealing that ruling. He denounced the verdict on social media in September.

Immunity and the evidence

Trump's lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts and argue that his response to the Daniels story, once it became public in 2018, was official conduct. Their court papers describe the prosecutors' legal theory as "a house of cards" built on a mix of alleged state and federal offences, and they call the evidence "clearly insufficient". The first paragraph of one filing contends the case was the product of "immense political pressure" on a Democratic prosecutor. The appeal also asks whether jurors should have heard testimony about White House conversations, office workflow and Trump's social media posts during his first term. In an October filing, Giuffra argued that a president discussing allegations of personal misconduct is carrying out constitutional duties and is protected by immunity.

The prosecutors' response

The Manhattan district attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, says the legal theory and jury instructions were legitimate and that the White House-related evidence was fair game. Prosecutors say some of that material was public record, some was a general description of office practices, and the conversations were unofficial conduct. Steven Wu, Bragg's appeals chief, wrote in a July filing:

“A president's discussions about a purely private matter, even with a White House adviser, do not constitute 'official acts for which the president is immune'.”

Wu also argued that there was a mountain of other evidence against Trump. The panel has not issued its decision, and Trump's separate appeal of the federal transfer ruling is still pending.