Trump’s Felony Conviction Stands as Judge Rejects Dismissal Bid
MANHATTAN — In a decision that underscored the enduring consequences of a historic criminal trial, Justice Juan M. Merchan of the State Supreme Court on Friday rejected
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s latest effort to overturn his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, setting the stage for a sentencing hearing next month that could leave Mr. Trump entering the White House as a convicted felon.
The ruling, issued in an 18-page opinion, came as Mr. Trump prepares to return to office on Jan. 20, 2025. Justice Merchan signaled that he was inclined toward an “unconditional discharge” — a rare disposition that would affirm the jury’s verdict without imposing prison time, fines, or probation.
Yet the judge made clear that the conviction itself would remain on Mr. Trump’s record, a landmark stigma for any American president.
The case stems from a scheme to suppress potentially damaging stories during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office
led by Alvin L. Bragg, charged that Mr. Trump orchestrated a $130,000 payment to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who claimed to have had a sexual encounter with him a decade earlier — an allegation Mr. Trump has consistently denied.
To conceal the reimbursement to his former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who made the payment, Mr. Trump caused 34 false entries to be made in business records:
11 invoices from Mr. Cohen labeled as legal expenses, 11 checks signed by Mr. Trump or from his trust, and 12 corresponding ledger entries in the Trump Organization’s books.
Each count of falsifying business records in the first degree — elevated from a misdemeanor because the falsification was intended to conceal another crime, namely an unlawful effort to influence the 2016 election — carries a potential sentence of up to four years in prison.
A jury of 12 New Yorkers, after a six-week trial in the spring of 2024, unanimously found Mr. Trump guilty on all 34 counts, concluding that the payments were part of a broader effort to deceive voters.
Justice Merchan, a veteran jurist known for his measured demeanor and meticulous rulings, has navigated the case with evident caution. In his decision Friday
he dismissed Mr. Trump’s arguments that a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity should nullify the verdict, noting that the conduct at issue predated Mr. Trump’s presidency and involved personal, not official, acts.
The judge also rejected claims that proceeding with sentencing would unduly interfere with executive duties, writing that “finding no legal impediment to sentencing” and recognizing impending presidential immunity, it was “incumbent” to impose sentence before inauguration day.
Mr. Trump’s legal team, led by Todd Blanche, reacted swiftly and angrily, calling the ruling “unconstitutional” and vowing appeals that could reach higher courts.
In a statement, a Trump spokesman decried the case as a “lawless” partisan attack, echoing the president-elect’s long-standing portrayal of the prosecution as politically motivated.
Inside the courthouse, prosecutors appeared restrained but resolute. Joshua Steinglass, who led much of the trial presentation, has acknowledged in recent filings that incarceration is no longer a “practicable recommendation” given Mr. Trump’s impending return to the Oval Office.
Yet the district attorney’s office has insisted that the verdict must stand as a matter of accountability.
Among Mr. Trump’s allies, reactions ranged from defiance to quiet unease. Some Republican lawmakers publicly dismissed the case as irrelevant now that voters have spoken, while others privately expressed relief that Justice Merchan appeared to rule out jail time.
Legal analysts noted the delicate balance the judge has struck: upholding the jury’s findings while acknowledging the extraordinary constitutional realities of sentencing a president-elect.
The gag order that constrained Mr. Trump’s public commentary during the trial — and which he violated multiple times, incurring fines — has largely lapsed, though Justice Merchan has warned that inflammatory rhetoric could still invite sanctions.
Mr. Trump, for his part, has continued to assail the proceedings on social media, labeling the judge “conflicted” and the case a “witch hunt.”
As the Jan. 10 sentencing approaches, the nation confronts an unprecedented tableau: a former and future president facing formal judgment for crimes tied to his first campaign.
Whatever the final disposition — likely the unconditional discharge Justice Merchan has foreshadowed — the 34 felony convictions will endure as a permanent mark on Mr. Trump’s legacy, even as he prepares to reclaim the highest office in the land.
The broader implications remain unclear. Appeals are certain to follow, potentially dragging the matter through higher courts for years.
For now, the judicial system has affirmed that no one, not even a president-elect, stands fully above the law — though the practical limits of enforcement in this singular case are equally evident.
In the weeks ahead, the case is expected to move into a complex appellate phase that could test the boundaries of presidential immunity, state criminal jurisdiction, and the enforceability of verdicts against a sitting president.
Mr. Trump’s attorneys have signaled plans to seek emergency relief in state appellate courts and, if necessary, federal courts, arguing that any sentencing — even a symbolic one — intrudes on the executive branch at a moment of constitutional transition.
Legal scholars caution, however, that overturning the conviction itself will be far more difficult than delaying or narrowing its consequences.
The jury verdict rests on state law findings unrelated to presidential authority, and Justice Merchan’s opinion was carefully drafted to anticipate higher-court scrutiny, addressing immunity, timing, and separation-of-powers concerns in methodical detail.
Politically, the ruling lands at a volatile moment. Mr. Trump’s supporters have framed the outcome as proof that the legal system is weaponized, while critics argue it demonstrates restraint rather than excess — a conviction upheld, but punishment tempered by institutional realities.
Polling in recent days suggests the decision has hardened existing views rather than reshaped them, reinforcing the deep partisan divide surrounding Mr. Trump’s legal troubles.
Inside the Trump transition operation, aides have worked to compartmentalize the case, insisting it will not distract from policy planning or Cabinet vetting.
Privately, some advisers acknowledge that the optics of a president entering office with felony convictions — even without incarceration — present uncharted challenges, particularly in dealings with foreign leaders and domestic institutions that emphasize rule-of-law norms.
Justice Merchan has scheduled sentencing for Jan. 10, leaving a narrow window before inauguration. While the expected unconditional discharge would spare Mr.
Trump tangible penalties, the formal entry of judgment would finalize the conviction unless stayed by an appellate court — a step that could become the next flashpoint in a legal saga already without precedent.
For the judiciary, the case has become a study in limits: how to enforce criminal accountability without provoking a constitutional crisis. For the country, it crystallizes a tension that is unlikely to fade — between electoral power and legal consequence, between political mandate and judicial judgment.
As Mr. Trump prepares once again to take the oath of office, the verdict stands as a stark, unresolved symbol.
The sentence may be light, the punishment restrained, but the finding of guilt remains — a historic marker that will shadow his second presidency and continue to test the resilience of American legal and democratic institutions for years to come.