A New York appeals court heard arguments on Trump’s bid to overturn his conviction
Donald Trump’s lawyers urged a five-judge New York appeals court Thursday to overturn his 34-count falsifying-business-records conviction, arguing presidential immunity and federal campaign-finance law undermine the verdict. Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. said state prosecutors lacked authority to build the case on federal election law. Manhattan district attorney’s appeals chief Steven Wu defended the state’s authority to protect business-record integrity.
More context
A five-judge New York appeals court heard arguments Thursday on Donald Trump’s bid to overturn his 34-count conviction for falsifying business records in connection with hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. argued that presidential immunity, federal campaign-finance law and limits on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s authority undermine the verdict. Giuffra said prosecutors could not base a state case on federal election law, calling that the “most obvious ground for reversal.” Judges also questioned whether evidence from Trump’s time in the White House, including online posts, involved official acts protected by immunity. Steven Wu, Bragg’s appellate chief, argued that the state could protect the integrity of business records and said the evidence concerns raised at the hearing were not enough to invalidate the conviction. Trump denies the alleged affair.
Was this story useful?
What was the main problem? (optional)
Reporting
- Los Angeles Times — Trump's lawyers appear before appeals court as he fights hush money conviction - Los Angeles Times
- The Hill — NY appeals panel eyes presidential immunity, Trump's hush money conviction
- Newsday — NY appeals court hears arguments from Long Island attorney in Trump hush money case - Newsday
Verifier’s note
The Los Angeles Times and Newsday report that Trump’s lawyers argued before the New York appeals court to overturn his hush-money conviction. The Hill independently reports the panel’s questions about presidential immunity and federal law, consistent with the proposed event.