President Donald Trump is once again fighting to erase his historic criminal conviction, as his legal team faces difficult questions from a New York appeals court over the case involving a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels.
The November 5 court hearing marked another important stage in Trump’s effort to overturn the verdict that made him the first former US president convicted of a crime.
A jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024. More than two years later, his lawyers are still trying to convince the courts that the conviction should never have happened.
But the latest hearing did not deliver the immediate victory Trump may have wanted. Instead, a panel of five appellate judges questioned both sides about the legal arguments surrounding the case.
The court did not indicate when it would issue a ruling.
Trump’s Lawyers Want All 34 Convictions Thrown Out
The case centers on a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, to Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election.
Daniels had threatened to make public an alleged sexual encounter with Trump years earlier. Trump has consistently denied that the encounter happened.
Prosecutors argued that the payment was intended to keep damaging information away from voters before the election.
They further alleged that Trump arranged for Cohen to be reimbursed through a series of payments recorded as legal expenses, concealing the true purpose of the transaction.
The jury ultimately found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal the alleged scheme.
Trump’s legal team now wants the appeals court to reverse that verdict.
His lawyers argue that prosecutors relied on a flawed legal theory by connecting New York business-records charges to federal campaign-finance law.
During Thursday’s hearing, Trump’s attorney, Robert Giuffra Jr., told the judges that state prosecutors had no proper basis for relying on federal election law in the case.
He described the argument as one of the strongest reasons the conviction should be overturned.
Judges Question Both Sides Over the Evidence
The appeals hearing was not a straightforward victory for either side.
The judges questioned Trump’s lawyers about their argument that certain evidence should never have been presented to the jury.
One major issue involved conversations Trump had with former White House communications director Hope Hicks after the Daniels story became public in 2018.
Trump’s lawyers argue that some of the conversations and other evidence involving his time in office should have been protected by presidential immunity.
Their position is that a president’s communications with White House advisers about responding to public controversy can involve official presidential duties.
Prosecutors strongly disagree.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office argued that the conversations concerned Trump’s private interests rather than official government responsibilities.
Prosecutors also maintained that other evidence presented during the trial was either publicly available or related to ordinary White House procedures.
They argued that even if some evidence should have been excluded, it did not change the strength of the case against Trump.
However, the judges appeared interested in whether several disputed pieces of evidence, considered together, could have affected the jury’s decision.
That question could become important as the court considers whether the conviction should stand.
Trump Continues to Call the Case Politically Motivated
Trump has repeatedly described the criminal prosecution as a political attack designed to damage his reputation and interfere with his political ambitions.
His lawyers repeated that argument in their appeal, claiming the case was brought under political pressure against a leading Republican presidential candidate.
Trump’s legal team also challenged the way prosecutors interpreted the payments made to Cohen.
They maintain that the reimbursements were legitimate legal expenses and argue that the money was intended to prevent embarrassment to Trump’s family, not conceal illegal campaign spending.
Prosecutors have rejected that explanation.
Their argument is that the payments were part of a wider effort to prevent damaging information from reaching voters before the 2016 election.
The appeals court must now consider the competing legal arguments rather than simply accept either side’s political claims.
The Conviction Still Stands as Trump Pursues Another Legal Route
Although Trump is appealing the verdict, his conviction has not been erased.
In January 2025, shortly before returning to the White House, he received an unconditional discharge.
That sentence meant he faced no jail time, fine or probation, but the conviction itself remained on his record.
Trump has also pursued a separate legal strategy to move the case from New York state court into federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.
A federal judge rejected that effort again in August 2026. Trump’s lawyers have appealed that decision, with arguments scheduled for November 16.
This means the president is pursuing multiple legal routes in an effort to undo the case.
However, neither the latest state appeals hearing nor the separate federal appeal has resulted in the conviction being overturned.
Another Legal Battle Trump Cannot Simply Walk Away From
The latest hearing shows that Trump’s legal fight over the hush-money conviction is far from over.
The five judges will have to consider whether prosecutors used a legally sound approach, whether the evidence presented to the jury was appropriate and whether any errors were serious enough to justify reversing the verdict.
For Trump, the stakes remain significant.
He has returned to the White House, but his criminal conviction continues to follow him as his lawyers pursue another attempt to have it overturned.
For now, the verdict remains in place, and the appeals court has yet to decide whether Trump’s arguments are strong enough to change that.
