NEW YORK, November 5, 2026 — Lawyers representing President Donald Trump are seeking to overturn his historic New York criminal conviction as the legal battle involving Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg enters another significant stage before a state appeals court.
The proceedings place Trump's defense team and prosecutors from Bragg's office on opposing sides of a legal dispute involving business records, presidential immunity, the interpretation of New York criminal law, and the limits of prosecutorial authority. The appeal concerns a 2024 jury verdict finding Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records connected to a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
The November 5 hearing represents an important opportunity for Trump's attorneys to explain why they believe the conviction should be reversed. Prosecutors, meanwhile, maintain that the original proceedings followed the law and that the evidence supported the jury's decision.
The case has attracted national attention because Trump is both the defendant in the criminal proceeding and the sitting president of the United States. Its outcome could carry implications for the relationship between presidential immunity, state criminal prosecutions, and the principle that public office does not automatically place an individual beyond the reach of ordinary criminal law.
According to reporting by The Associated Press and ABC News published November 5, Trump's legal team is scheduled to present its arguments before a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, First Department. Trump is not expected to attend the hearing.
At this stage, the hearing should not be confused with a final appellate decision. The judges must consider the parties' legal arguments before determining whether the conviction should stand, be modified, or be reversed.
Trump’s Legal Team Seeks to Overturn the 34-Count Conviction
The central issue before the appeals court is whether Trump's 2024 conviction can withstand challenges concerning the prosecution's legal theory, the evidence presented to jurors, and the instructions provided by the trial judge.
Trump's defense attorneys have argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and that the case relied on an improper interpretation of New York law. Their appeal characterizes the prosecution as an unprecedented case brought during a politically sensitive period when Trump was the leading Republican presidential candidate.
According to ABC News, attorneys from Sullivan & Cromwell, the law firm representing Trump in the appeal, described the prosecution in their court filing as one of the most politically charged cases in American history.
The defense also argues that prosecutors improperly combined underlying legal violations to establish felony charges. Under New York law, falsifying business records in the first degree requires proof of an additional intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime.
Trump's attorneys contend that prosecutors did not establish the necessary legal foundation for elevating the business-record offenses to felonies. They have also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the way the trial judge instructed the jury.
Another major argument concerns the judge's alleged failure to recuse himself. The defense has questioned whether the trial judge should have remained involved in the proceedings because of alleged concerns about impartiality.
These are arguments advanced by the defense, not findings established by the appeals court. The judges must independently examine the applicable law, the trial record, and the arguments presented by both parties.
Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing. During his January 2025 sentencing, he described the prosecution as a political witch hunt and maintained that the case had been intended to damage his public reputation.
The defense's position is therefore built around several connected questions: whether the charges were legally sufficient, whether the evidence was properly admitted, whether the jury received appropriate instructions, and whether the trial judge acted within the boundaries of judicial responsibility.
The appellate process gives the court an opportunity to examine those questions without simply repeating the original trial. Its task is to determine whether legally significant errors affected the proceedings or whether the conviction should remain in place.
Alvin Bragg’s Prosecutors Defend the New York Case
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his prosecutors have rejected Trump's central arguments and are asking the appeals court to uphold the conviction.
The prosecution maintains that the charges involved business transactions that could be prosecuted under established New York law. Its position is that the case concerned Trump's personal conduct and the alleged falsification of corporate records, rather than actions undertaken through the constitutional powers of the presidency.
In a July 2026 court filing, the Manhattan district attorney's office argued that the criminal charges arose from conduct that was unofficial and nonpresidential.
Steven Wu, the appeals chief for Bragg's office, addressed the presidential immunity argument directly. According to the filing quoted by The Associated Press, Wu argued that discussions about a private matter do not become constitutionally protected presidential actions simply because they involve a White House adviser.
The prosecution also maintains that the jury considered substantial evidence beyond the specific testimony and material that Trump's attorneys now challenge on immunity grounds.
The office's argument is important because the appeal is not limited to whether certain evidence should have been admitted. It also concerns whether any disputed evidence was sufficiently important to undermine the jury's verdict.
Prosecutors argue that the remaining evidence independently supports the conviction.
Bragg's position reflects a broader principle of criminal procedure: a defendant's public position does not automatically eliminate the legal consequences of conduct that prosecutors establish as criminal. However, the prosecution must still satisfy the applicable standards of proof and comply with constitutional protections.
The district attorney's office must also defend the legal connection between the underlying business records and the additional criminal intent required under New York law.
The appeals court will therefore have to consider the arguments on their legal merits rather than relying on the political positions of either party.
The distinction is particularly important in a case involving a sitting president and a locally elected prosecutor. Political disagreements may influence public discussion, but they do not independently establish whether a criminal conviction is legally valid.
For Bragg's office, the objective is to demonstrate that the original prosecution was lawful, that the trial evidence was admissible, and that the jury's verdict should remain enforceable.
The Stormy Daniels Payment and the Origins of the Criminal Trial
The legal dispute originated with a $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election.
Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, has said that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied that the encounter occurred.
During the 2016 election campaign, Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney and longtime fixer, arranged the payment to Daniels in exchange for her agreement to remain silent about the alleged encounter.
The payment was made shortly before the presidential election, a period when damaging personal information about a candidate could potentially influence public discussion and voter perceptions.
Cohen subsequently received reimbursement through payments from Trump's company during 2017. Those transactions were recorded as legal expenses.
Prosecutors argued that the records misrepresented the true nature of the reimbursements and formed part of a broader effort to conceal information from voters during the election campaign.
The defense disputed that interpretation. Trump's lawyers argued that the reimbursements represented legitimate legal expenses and that the arrangements were intended to prevent embarrassment rather than conceal unlawful campaign spending.
The distinction became central to the criminal charges.
In March 2023, Bragg's office brought 34 felony counts of falsifying business records against Trump in Manhattan. The case became the first criminal trial of a former American president.
The trial began in April 2024 and lasted approximately six weeks. Prosecutors presented testimony from several witnesses, including Cohen, who described his involvement in arranging the payment and the subsequent reimbursement process.
Cohen testified that Trump had directed him to handle the payment and approved the reimbursement arrangement. Trump's defense attorneys challenged Cohen's credibility, pointing to his previous legal problems, public criticism of Trump, and history of making false statements.
The jury ultimately found Trump guilty on all 34 counts on May 30, 2024.
The verdict established a historic legal outcome, but it did not end the dispute. Trump's legal team continued to challenge the conviction through post-trial motions and appeals.
The case also became connected to broader constitutional questions after the Supreme Court addressed presidential immunity in a separate proceeding in July 2024.
That ruling changed the legal environment in which Trump's attorneys challenged evidence relating to his conduct while serving as president during his first term.
The current appeal therefore examines not only the business records but also the relationship between the criminal trial and the constitutional protections available to a president.
Presidential Immunity Raises Complex Constitutional Questions
Presidential immunity is among the most significant legal issues in Trump's appeal.
In July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that former presidents possess absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their exclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity for other official presidential acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
The decision concerned a separate federal criminal case, but its legal principles became relevant to Trump's efforts to challenge the New York conviction.
Trump's attorneys argue that certain evidence presented during the Manhattan trial involved communications and conduct connected to his first presidential administration.
They maintain that discussions with White House advisers and public responses to allegations should receive constitutional protection when they involve the responsibilities of the presidency.
In an October 2026 filing, Trump's lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. argued that a president addressing the nation about allegations of personal misconduct, or discussing those communications with advisers, is carrying out constitutional responsibilities protected by presidential immunity.
The defense argues that the trial court should not have permitted jurors to consider evidence that it believes concerned protected presidential activity.
Bragg's office takes a different view.
Prosecutors argue that the conduct underlying the criminal charges occurred in Trump's private capacity and was not an exercise of presidential authority. They further maintain that communications about a personal matter do not automatically become official presidential acts merely because they involve people working in the White House.
The distinction between official and unofficial conduct is legally significant.
Presidential immunity is not a blanket exemption from every criminal investigation or prosecution involving a president. The constitutional analysis depends on the nature of the conduct and its relationship to the powers of the executive branch.
For example, an official decision involving the president's constitutional responsibilities may receive protection that would not necessarily apply to an individual's private financial arrangements.
The appeals court must consider whether the disputed evidence falls within the categories recognized by the Supreme Court and, if so, whether its admission affected the fairness or validity of the original trial.
It must also examine whether the conviction can stand independently of any evidence that might be constitutionally protected.
This is not a purely political question. It involves constitutional interpretation, evidentiary rules, criminal procedure, and the limits of state authority.
A decision favorable to Trump could require changes to the conviction or a new examination of certain trial issues. A decision favorable to prosecutors could leave the original verdict intact, subject to any further available appeals.
Neither outcome should be assumed before the court issues its ruling.
What Happens Next for Trump and Manhattan Prosecutors?
The November 5 hearing represents one part of a wider legal effort by Trump to challenge his criminal conviction.
The state appeal is separate from his efforts to move the case into federal court and seek dismissal on presidential immunity grounds.
In August 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected Trump's renewed attempt to transfer the already-decided New York case to federal court.
That ruling represented another setback for Trump's effort to have the conviction reviewed in a federal forum. His lawyers have continued pursuing an appeal of the federal court decision.
According to The Associated Press, arguments in that separate federal appeal are scheduled for November 16, 2026.
The distinction between the two proceedings matters. The November 5 hearing concerns Trump's direct challenge to the state conviction before New York's appellate court. The November 16 proceeding concerns the separate dispute over moving the case into federal court.
The two legal tracks involve overlapping constitutional questions, but they are not the same appeal and should not be treated as a single proceeding.
The state appellate judges must evaluate the arguments submitted by Trump's lawyers and Bragg's prosecutors. Their review may address the interpretation of New York's business-records statute, the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, judicial impartiality, and presidential immunity.
Several possible outcomes are legally available.
First, the court could affirm the conviction, leaving the jury's verdict in place. This would represent a significant victory for the Manhattan district attorney's office, although Trump could continue pursuing further review where permitted.
Second, the court could reverse the conviction if it determines that serious legal errors affected the trial or that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary legal requirements.
Third, the court could order a different form of relief, depending on its findings. This could involve reconsideration of particular issues or other action permitted under New York appellate procedure.
The legal consequences would depend on the precise grounds of the ruling.
The original sentence also remains relevant. On January 10, 2025, Trump received an unconditional discharge. The sentence did not impose incarceration, probation, or a financial penalty.
The conviction nevertheless remains historically significant because it marked the first time a former U.S. president had been convicted of criminal offenses.
For Bragg, the appeal represents an opportunity to defend the prosecution's legal foundation and the jury's decision. For Trump's defense team, it is another attempt to establish that the trial involved errors serious enough to justify reversing the verdict.
The case also raises questions about the relationship between state criminal law and the constitutional responsibilities of the presidency.
Legal observers will be watching how the judges address the boundaries of presidential immunity and whether the distinction between private conduct and official acts can be applied consistently.
The broader implications extend beyond the individuals involved. The ruling could influence how courts approach evidence involving presidential conduct in future criminal proceedings.
Nevertheless, the appeals court's responsibility is narrower than the political debate surrounding the case. It must decide the legal questions presented by the parties using the applicable statutes, constitutional principles, and established judicial standards.
As of November 5, 2026, the hearing is the latest publicly reported development in the state appeal. A final decision should be reported only after the court formally releases its ruling.
For now, Trump's conviction remains the subject of active judicial review, while Alvin Bragg's prosecutors continue defending the legal basis of the original verdict.
The outcome will depend on the appellate court's assessment of the record and the law, not on either side's political characterization of the prosecution.