Dramatic, sometimes explicit testimony from Stormy Daniels in the Trump trial. That set off a mistrial motion from Donald Trump's legal defense team, a request Judge Mershon denied. I want to bring back CNN legal analyst, Elliot Williams, for a closer look. Elliot, walk us through what needs to happen for a judge to declare a mistrial.

Absolutely, Wolf. It's a very important aspect of trials that happens here. What is a mistrial? This is right out of New York state law. A court must declare a mistrial if, number one, there's legal defect in the proceedings, this big word, if it's prejudicial to the defendant and deprives him of a fair trial. It's not just something that's a mistake. It's a mistake that's so bad that the defendant's trial was impaired. Now, what was it today that got us here in the first place? I'll warn everybody, some of these words are adult words, but here we go. There was one talking about what sexual position might have happened in this alleged affair when Sarmy Daniels was testifying today. There was a few references to her having blacked out was the language used. Also, she testified about the size of his body and his behavior, saying that he was several inches taller and much larger than she was, that there was an imbalance of power between the two of them, that he was bigger and blocking the way. All of these things suggested, to some extent, perhaps a consent question that, quite frankly, even if Serius is not an issue in this trial and might have, at least as the argument was, impaired the defendant's to get a fair trial.

So the defense then moved for a mistrial saying, and this is Todd Blanch, the attorney for the former President, saying, This has nothing to do with the trial. This was very carefully chosen language, extraordinarily prejudicial. He had to say that. He put that on the record so that if they lose this trial and he ends up getting convicted, they deserve the right to appeal. He has to say that at this stage of the proceedings. He has to make an argument like that. In addition, he also made the point that this is a testimony that it's impossible to come back from. Very strong language about the fact that the defendant was prejudiced in the eyes of the law. Now, the judge in ruling did say he agreed with Mr. Blanch, but that some things were, and this is, you don't want a judge to ever say this to you, there are some things that probably would have been better left unsaid. Now, this is what he said in denying the mistrial, saying that, We're at a point I don't think that a mistrial is warranted. He also said, and went after the defense a little bit here, saying, When When the bell has been rung, when that language is out there, the defense has to take some responsibility.

He was saying that the defense didn't file enough objections in real-time. So where do we go from here? A couple next steps for everybody. The Trump team will almost certainly, I can assure you, move for another mistrial before the end of this trial. After the close of evidence, they're going to put this on the record again so that if they appeal, they have the right to go there again. Number two, the judge will give what are called limiting instructions the jury when he instructs the jury at the end of the trial saying, Disregard all the other nonsense you can consider whether these two individuals had sex, but leave it at that. Sort of silly because the jury has already heard it. Then finally, if the former President loses, they're going to appeal. They'll take it up to the New York Appellate Court or the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state. That's it, how mistrials work.

There you go, Wolf. Elliot, excellent explanation. Thank you very much. Elliot Williams is helping us. I want to get some more now from former US district Court Judge, Shira Shendland. Judge Shira Shenland. Judge Shenland, thank you so much as usual for joining us. Judge Mershon denied this motion for a mistrial, as you know, while acknowledging that some testimony today went too far. First of all, do you agree with his decision?

I agree that some of the testimony went too far, and I fully understand why he was not going to grant a mistrial at this stage. There's a lot that has been invested in this trial, and he feels that the prejudice can be cured. I'm not so sure that's totally right. As your previous guest said, it's hard to unring the bell or the genies out of the bottle. The jury heard it all, and I'm sure it affects them. And of course, the details that she spoke about have nothing to do with the charges in this case. So it was extraneous. It shouldn't have been said. The witness went off on her own, and I'm sure that was more than the prosecution had expected her to say. But there it is. It's on the record.

Yes, it is. Judge Mershon scolded Stormy Daniels for going off topic, at one point telling her, and I'm quoting him now, Just answer the questions. He raised objections himself on the defense's behalf. Did he do enough, do you think, Judge, to rein in today's testimony?

I think he did everything he could, meaning he sustained a number of the defense objections, and when they didn't object and he thought they should, he did it himself, which judges are known to do. I have done that. Sometimes the judge says, Objection sustained when there was none. So the record looks like somebody might have stood up or raised their hand, but the judge says, Objection sustained. So he tried to protect the record by shutting her down and closing off some of the material. But she sure got a lot of dirt out, and the purpose seems to be to have painted the defendant as a very unpleasant person, not for political reasons, but for his way he treats women. And this may have a real impact on at least women jurors, and I'm sure some of the men, too. So it seemed pretty calculated on her part to besmirch him, shall we say, to paint him as a very bad man.

While I have you, Judge, I want to quickly discuss Trump's classified documents case down in Florida, while I have you. The judge there is indefinitely postponing the trial and letting Trump air unfounded theories about the prosecution in a hearing next month. Was this the right call?

Was this the right Well, never the right call. She's been slow walking this, as somebody again said tonight, for a long, long time. She has eight undecided motions. She could have ruled on half of them by now, but she doesn't rule. She puts it all off, then she says they're There are many complex issues regarding classified documents, and that's true. But if she had done her job, there wouldn't be eight left. There might be three, and she could set a trial date. Instead, she says, Well, May is out. Everybody agrees to that at this point. Maybe July or August. But that's getting very close to September, which is really too close to the election. So I think it's obvious to everybody we are not going to have a trial on this case, the documents case, before the election.

I suspect you're right, Judge Sheerish Edelman. Thank you very much as usual.