Justice Juan Merchan denied former President Donald Trump’s defense’s move for a mistrial on Tuesday over adult film star Stormy Daniels’ testimony at his business records trial in Manhattan.

The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reported one of Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche, argued that Daniels’s “testimony was overly prejudicial, and that the government was asking questions ‘to inflame this jury.’”

Blanche contended Daniels’ story has evolved and “that the jury also heard inappropriate details about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump,” the Hill noted.

As Fox News reported:

Blanche said Daniels’ testimony on Tuesday was about “consent and danger” and said that was “not the story that she was selling in 2016.” Blanche also said that Daniels is testifying about consent, and said that kind of testimony “makes it impossible to come back from.” Blanche said the defense “objected as best we could but she was able to say what she said.”

Blanche questioned how the defense could “come back from this” in a way that could be “fair” to former President Trump.”We believe there should be a mistrial,” Blanche said. “Or that this witness’s testimony is excluded and extremely limited.”

In a post on X, Daily Caller Court Reporter Katelynn Richardson quoted Blanche as saying, “The guardrails for this witness answering questions from the government were just thrown to the side.”

In response, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger claimed the state was “extremely mindful of not eliciting too much testimony,” per Richardson.

Merchan said Daniels’ testimony had “too much detail,” but denied the motion for a mistrial, per the Hill. He did reportedly put restrictions on how jury will be able to use her testimony.

Judge Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024. Merchan could become the first judge ever to oversee a former U.S. president’s criminal trial. He’s presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Per Richardson, he also said he was “surprised that there were not more objections.”

But, as Haberman writes, Trump defense attorney Susan Necheles “says that the defense team had moved to strike so much of this beforehand, and Merchan still let it in.”

“She says that they were under the impression the prosecutors were doing what Merchan allowed during questioning. Merchan disagrees,” added Haberman.

The case is New York v. Trump, No. 71543-23, in the New York Supreme Court for New York County.