President Donald Trump’s legal team has formally appealed his criminal conviction from the high-profile Manhattan “hush money” case, arguing the trial was fundamentally flawed. They contend that key evidence presented against Trump was erroneously admitted despite protections granted by a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. This appeal marks the latest step in Trump’s ongoing fight to erase the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Trump’s attorneys claim the trial violated his constitutional rights and New York state law. They argue that the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, should have recused himself due to alleged prior conflicts, but he declined to step down. They also assert the jury was improperly allowed to consider Trump’s official presidential acts as evidence, pointing to testimony from former White House aide Hope Hicks and the president’s social media posts which they say should have been excluded.
The legal team criticizes the prosecution, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, as politically motivated. They highlight the timing—charges filed amid a contentious presidential election during which Trump was the leading Republican candidate—and call the prosecution the “most politically charged” in U.S. history. The appeal also notes that federal election laws preempt the state laws applied in the case.
Though Trump was convicted in May 2024, he received an unconditional discharge in January 2025, meaning no jail time or fines, but the felony conviction remains. The president continues to press for the case to be moved to federal court, where he hopes it might be overturned. Overturning the conviction could erase his status as a felon on legal grounds linked to presidential immunity.
This appeal is part of broader efforts by Trump to reverse multiple legal setbacks, asserting that the charges relied on legally dubious theories and politically driven motivations. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has not issued a public response to the appeal as of now.
