Trump hush money case: President appeals guilty verdict, court papers show

President Donald Trump is appealing his 2024 state felony conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, calling it “the most politically charged prosecution in our nation’s history.”

The president, through his Southampton-based lawyer Robert Giuffra, called for a New York appellate court to overturn the conviction in his hush money trial based on what the filing said was a series of legal and procedural errors on the part of prosecutors and the judge that should negate the jury’s guilty verdict.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump in March 2023 with creating false business records regarding the reimbursement of his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who had used his own money to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels to remain quiet about an affair she said she'd had with the president. Cohen, Trump and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker conspired to use hush money payoffs ahead of the 2016 presidential election to keep the information from the voting public, according to court testimony.

Prosecutors charged that Trump fraudulently called the reimbursement “legal fees” and a "retainer” for Cohen on company ledgers.

A Manhattan jury voted to convict Trump, then a presidential candidate, on all charges after two days of deliberations.

The 96-page appeal brief filed Monday night levels blistering condemnation of Bragg and acting state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, buckling to political pressure to bring the case to a verdict, legal papers say.

The appellate lawyer argues the statute of limitations had expired for the business records charge, which he said was artificially elevated to a felony by the theory that the records were altered to cover up another crime — violating a federal campaign finance law.

“Targeting alleged conduct that has never been found to violate any New York law, the DA concocted a purported felony by stacking time-barred misdemeanors under a convoluted legal theory, which the DA then improperly obscured until the charge conference,” Giuffra wrote in his brief. “This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction. This court should now reverse.”

According to the lawyer, state prosecutors are also barred from enforcing federal campaign finance rules, a duty designated to the Federal Election Commission and federal law enforcement.

Some of the payments to Cohen were made from the White House after Trump's election, according to testimony. Staffers working in Washington at the time told the jury about the president’s workflow and mailing procedures, testimony that should not have been allowed under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting presidential immunity even for non-governmental acts in the White House, the appeals attorney argued.

The brief also argues that the judge erred by not instructing the jury properly on the criminal charge.

Merchan told the jury they could convict Trump if they found that he had promoted or prevented the election of any person through unlawful means, but Giuffra argues they were never told what the unlawful means were.

Prosecutors had argued that jurors did not have to agree if Trump falsified the business records to mislead the bank, to help Cohen avoid taxes or skirt federal campaign finance limits.

Giuffra's brief said Trump’s due process rights were violated through a “haphazard” combination of theories and the judge’s instruction to the jury.

That wasn’t the judge’s only error, Giuffra wrote. He also said Merchan should have recused himself from the case for a number of reasons.

The judge, Giuffra wrote, donated money to Trump’s political rival and a political action committee called “Stop Republicans PAC." Additionally, Merchan’s daughter works for a political consulting firm retained by the president’s Democratic adversary, Kamala Harris.

The judge had consulted a state judiciary board regarding the donations, which found there was no conflict.

The state Office of Court Administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The prosecution has the opportunity to respond with its own brief before an appellate panel will eventually hear arguments on the matter.

Separately, Trump has also asked a federal appeals court to settle the issue, which could happen before the state court hears the case.