US appeals court questions whether Trump's hush money conviction should stand

Trump's lawyers argue evidence used in trial violated presidential immunity protections, while prosecutors maintain conviction was legally sound

A New York appeals court on Thursday questioned whether US President Donald Trump's criminal conviction over hush money payments made before the 2016 presidential election should stand under presidential immunity protections, The Hill reported. Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, allegedly intended to prevent her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Trump ahead of the election. Trump denies the encounter. The conviction made him the first former US president to be found guilty of a crime. He was later sentenced to an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no prison time, fines or probation. During Thursday's hearing, Trump's lawyers argued that prosecutors improperly presented evidence involving his official presidential activities, including social media posts, White House phone records and testimony from former aide Hope Hicks. Their argument relies on a 2024 Supreme Court ruling granting former presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts performed while in office. "Wouldn't that be or fit within the outer perimeter that the Supreme Court was talking about here, and therefore would have barred this stuff from coming in?" Associate Justice Martin Shulman asked. Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office defended the trial, arguing that the evidence was permissible and that any errors were insufficient to overturn the conviction. Trump's lawyers also argued that federal campaign finance law takes precedence over the state law used to prosecute him.