Trump's legal team contests 'hush money' conviction before New York appeals court
Attorneys argue the 2024 guilty verdict relied on official presidential conduct that should have been governed by federal election laws rather than state criminal law.
By Tessa Cooper ·
President Trump's new legal team filed arguments on Thursday urging a New York appeals court to overturn his 2024 criminal conviction in the "hush money" case. The Appellate Division, First Department, heard briefs from both sides in a proceeding that each party expects will move to the state's highest court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert Giuffra, co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell and Trump's current attorney, led the defense filings. Giuffra echoed a sentiment Trump has frequently shared on social media, stating the case "should have never been brought." The defense contends that the reimbursement payments to former attorney Michael Cohen were subject to federal election laws, which they argue preempt state prosecution. They also claim prosecutors violated presidential immunity and failed to prove an intent to defraud.
Giuffra wrote that the central question is whether the statements and strategies introduced at trial were official acts of the presidency. He noted these actions responded to public allegations of personal wrongdoing that bore directly on the president's integrity and fitness for office.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office counters that the 2016 payments constituted a conspiracy to defraud the American public and government regulators. In a July brief, Bragg's lawyers argued the charges arose from unofficial, non-presidential conduct. They cited multiple court findings to support the view that the conduct was personal rather than official.
The legal dispute stems from a unanimous jury verdict in May 2024. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payment occurred days before the 2016 election to secure her silence regarding an alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Trump has consistently denied the allegations.
The arguments come one week after the death of Judge J. Paul Oetken, who presided over a parallel federal effort by Trump to move the case out of state court. Oetken repeatedly rejected Trump's claims that the reimbursements were official presidential duties. He stated that reimbursing Cohen for hush money cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty, nor can falsifying records to hide that reimbursement.
Each side had 15 minutes to answer questions from the three-judge panel. The original defense team included Todd Blanche, now U.S. attorney general, and Emil Bove III, now a federal judge, but the new team has maintained the same core arguments used throughout the 2024 trial.
