Sullivan & Cromwell Files Sweeping 96-Page Appeal in Trump’s Hush Money Conviction
In a late-night filing just 31 minutes before the deadline, Donald Trump’s legal team at Sullivan & Cromwell submitted a 96-page appeal to New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, seeking to overturn his May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The document, led by partners Robert Giuffra and Matthew Schwartz, brands the case as the “most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history” and argues it was “fatally marred” by prosecutorial overreach, judicial bias, and legal errors.
The appeal centers on the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution, which stemmed from a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. A jury convicted Trump of reimbursing his then-lawyer Michael Cohen through falsified records, elevating misdemeanor offenses to felonies by alleging intent to violate election laws. Trump, now president-elect, faces no immediate sentencing consequences but aims to erase his felon status before potential federal office complications.
Core Arguments in the Filing
The brief methodically dismantles the conviction across multiple fronts, demanding a full reversal and dismissal. Here’s a breakdown of the primary claims, drawn directly from the document:
- Political Motivation and Selective Prosecution
Trump’s lawyers assert Bragg, a Democrat, timed the case to sabotage the 2024 election. They highlight Bragg’s campaign promises to “get” Trump and note the DA’s office ignored similar conduct by others. “This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction,” the filing states, accusing the prosecution of weaponizing state law for national politics. - Flawed Legal Theory: ‘Stacked’ Misdemeanors
The appeal calls the felony elevation “convoluted” and improper, arguing Bragg “stacked time-barred misdemeanors” under New York Penal Law § 175.10 without proving a valid predicate offense. It contends the underlying election law violations were stale (beyond the five-year statute) and that federal law preempts state interference in campaign finance. - Judicial Bias and Recusal Denial
Trial Judge Juan Merchan’s $35 donation to Democratic causes in 2020 warranted recusal, the brief argues—a point previously rejected but now escalated. The team claims this created an “appearance of bias” in a high-profile political trial. - Evidentiary Errors Post-Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
Invoking the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential immunity decision (Trump v. United States), the filing objects to the jury’s exposure to “official acts” like Trump’s White House conversations with aide Hope Hicks and social media posts about the investigation. These, they say, tainted deliberations and must lead to reversal. - Defective Jury Instructions
The trial court’s instructions allegedly allowed a non-unanimous verdict on the “unlawful means” element, violating due process. Jurors didn’t need consensus on which specific election law was breached, the appeal contends. - Federal Preemption and DOJ Parallel
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) exclusively governs such matters, barring state prosecution, especially since the DOJ investigated the same facts without charges. This, combined with the Second Circuit’s pending removal motion, underscores federal jurisdiction.
The filing also requests oral arguments and notes the procedural shift: Original trial lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove joined the federal government in early 2025, prompting Sullivan & Cromwell’s involvement in January.
Broader Context and Reactions
This appeal follows Trump’s September 2025 motion to shift the case to federal court, leveraging his status as a federal official. Legal experts view it as a “powerhouse” effort, with Fox News calling it a direct assault on Bragg’s “politically driven” strategy. The New York Times notes it resurrects familiar defenses, while ABC News highlights accusations that Bragg “twisted” state law for a novel theory.
Bragg’s office has declined comment, but the case’s fate could ripple into Trump’s presidency. A reversal might embolden challenges to other probes, while upholding it tests state-federal boundaries in politically sensitive prosecutions. The Appellate Division typically rules within months, potentially fast-tracked given the stakes.
For the full 96-page brief, see the original PDF filing here.