Merchan took defense attorney Susan Necheles to task for her failure to object to a line of inquiry about whether or not Donald Trump used a condom during his alleged encounter with Stormy Daniels.

"For the life of me, I don't know why Ms. Necheles didn't object," the judge said.

Merchan emphasized that Daniels testimony was necessary because Trump's lawyers continue to deny the encounter occurred.

"That pits your client's words against Ms. Daniels' word," the judge said.

"These details add a sense of credibility if the jury chooses to believe them," Merchan said. "Your motion for a mistrial is denied."

Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass heavily pushed back on defense attorney Todd Blanche's motion for a mistrial based on Stormy Daniels' detailed and explicit testimony.

"It has always been the people's contention that the details in this case -- details of the two-hour conversation that Ms. Daniels had with the defendant in the living room and the dinner room of his hotel room in Harrah's -- corroborate her account," Steinglass said.

"They corroborate that the sex happened, which is motivation to silence her," he said.

Steinglass argued that defense lawyers cannot attack Daniels' credibility in their opening statement, then move for a mistrial after the state thoroughly questioned Daniels to develop her credibility with the jury.

"They're trying to have their cake and eat it too," Steinglass said.

Steinglass also argued that the condom testimony was permissible because Trump, according to Daniels, asked her a series of questions about protection and STDs in the adult film industry during their conversation in Trump's suite.

"Mr. Trump asked a lot of questions about the testing in the adult film industry," Steinglass said. "The reason that is relevant is because it explains his decision not to wear a condom."

"You know who knew what happened in that room? Mr. Trump knew," Steinglass said. "That was Mr. Trump's motive to silence this woman in 2016."

Trump has been sitting with his arms crossed, staring at Merchan, during the hearing.

In the defense's motion for a mistrial, defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that prosecutors went too far with their questions during Stormy Daniels' direct examination.

"What proceeded to happen was a whole host of questions that went way beyond the mere fact that it happened," Blanche said.

"It almost defies belief we are here about a records case," Blanche said. "This is not a case about sex."

"The nondisclosure agreement was entered. Whether it happened or not has nothing to do with the charges in this case," he argued.

Blanche specifically argued that Daniels' testimony about Trump not using a condom during the alleged encounter was prejudicial to the jury.

"It's a dog whistle for rape," Blanche said.

Judge Merchan, after hearing arguments from the defense, declined to modify the limited gag order so Trump could respond publicly to Stormy Daniels' testimony.

"I don't see what you're referring to as a new set of facts," the judge told the defense.

"My concern is not just with protecting Ms. Daniels or a witness who just testified," the judge said. "My concern is protecting these proceedings as a whole."

In making his ruling, Merchan quoted Trump's words from an excerpt of Trump's book that the jury saw today: "When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it."

The judge said that other witnesses would see how Trump treats Daniels if he modifies the gag order.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass indicted that the state's case could be headed into the home stretch.

"We expect to call potentially two witnesses" next week, Steinglass told Judge Merchan, saying it is "entirely possible" the state rests their case by the end of next week.

That will be followed by the presentation of the defense's case, then a prosecution rebuttal.

In another sign of how quickly the case is moving along, Merchan also invited the parties to begin submitting suggestions for the jury charge -- the instructions on the law delivered by the judge before the jury begins deliberating.