Trump's lawyers questioned jury unanimity requirements, while prosecutors highlighted the defence's earlier acceptance of the judge's instructions.
US President Donald Trump is once again under judicial scrutiny. Nearly two years after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 felony counts connected to a hush money payment made before the 2016 presidential election, Trump's legal team is attempting to have the historic verdict overturned. The latest challenge brought the President's lawyers face to face with a five-judge appeals panel, which closely examined questions surrounding presidential immunity, election laws and the evidence presented during his trial.
Lawyers challenge the legal foundation of the conviction
According to AP News, Trump's attorneys appeared before a New York appellate court on Thursday, November 5, arguing that the conviction should be overturned because the prosecution relied on federal election law to elevate the charges from misdemeanours to felonies. The case originated from a $130,000 payment made by Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, to adult film performer Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. The payment was intended to secure her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump approximately a decade earlier, which the president has consistently denied. Cohen was subsequently reimbursed by Trump's company in 2017, with the payments recorded as legal expenses. Prosecutors argued that the business records were deliberately falsified to conceal an alleged conspiracy to influence the election. Trump's lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. maintained that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office had improperly relied on the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), arguing that federal election law could not form the basis of a state prosecution. CBS News reported that the defence also challenged the jury instructions, arguing that jurors should have been required to unanimously agree on the underlying crime that elevated the falsification charges to felonies.
Presidential immunity becomes another battleground
Another significant aspect of the appeal concerns evidence from Trump's first presidential term. His legal team argued that testimony involving former White House communications director Hope Hicks and Trump's social media posts should not have been presented to jurors because they involved official presidential conduct protected by immunity. Hicks had testified about discussions with Trump after the Daniels allegations became public in 2018. His lawyers maintained that the conversations concerned his responsibilities as president, including managing press inquiries. However, prosecutors disputed that interpretation. According to AP News, Steven Wu, representing Bragg's office, argued that the conversations reflected Trump's personal opinions rather than official presidential duties. The prosecution also maintained that even if certain evidence should have been excluded, its admission did not affect the overall outcome because substantial other evidence supported the conviction.
Judges question both sides as Trump continues his fight
The five-judge panel repeatedly interrupted both legal teams with questions about their arguments. One judge also questioned whether the cumulative admission of potentially improper evidence could still be considered harmless. CBS News noted that Trump's defence additionally challenged the requirement for jury unanimity on the underlying offences, while prosecutors pointed out that the trial defence had previously accepted the judge's approach. The May 2024 conviction followed a unanimous jury verdict. Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts but received no punishment that impeded his return to the White House. His attempts to shift the case from state to federal court meanwhile have also faced setbacks.A federal judge denied his immunity dismissal request for the third time in August, with another appeal scheduled for Nov. 16. The New York appeals court has not announced its decision, leaving Trump's historic conviction in limbo.
