The judge in the corruption trial of U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, is expected to rule Monday on a defense motion for a mistrial.

Thursday's mistrial motion was prompted by a ruling from U.S. District Judge William Walls that barred the defense from presenting testimony from Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie lawyer who represented Menendez in an ethics probe by the U.S. Senate before his indictment. Defense lawyers also cited several prior rulings by Walls limiting what evidence the defense could present the jury to support the mistrial motion.

Lawyers for Menendez and for co-defendant Salomon Melgen sought to present testimony from Elias on his representation of the senator in the 2012 inquiry, but a prosecutor objected, claiming Elias' testimony would constitute hearsay because it would represent Menendez's testimony to the Senate ethics committee.

Defense lawyers also cited Walls' exclusion of testimony from another defense witness, Amy Bassano, an official in the Medicare program, and limits on the scope of testimony from Augustin Garcia, a Florida Democratic Party official who testified Thursday.

Elias has been in the spotlight recently because of reports he allegedly commissioned a report on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign that said Russia had learned of salacious allegations about Donald Trump.

Lawyers for Menendez and Melgen cited Walls' frequent assertions that defense testimony cannot be brought before the jury because it's cumulative or duplicative of other testimony.

“You didn't preclude anyone [federal prosecutors] wanted to call. They called people that were completely irrelevant. We didn't contest any of that. Witness after witness,” Melgen's lawyer, Kirk Ogrosky of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in Washington, D.C., said to Walls.

“But you see,” Walls responded, “the problem that I think you and your colleagues fail to appreciate is that you are bound by the same Rules of Evidence and law as everyone else. Just because you are charged with a crime doesn't mean that we throw away the rules and say, 'OK, anything you want to say or do, we will let you do.'”

The motion for a mistrial came after U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, testified favorably about the character of Menendez.

Walls is unlikely to grant a mistrial, but even if it is not granted, seeking one could help the defense, said Lee Vartan, a former federal prosecutor who practices white-collar defense with Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi in West Orange.

The standard for relevance in such circumstances is a low burden, but judges often misapply the standard, said Vartan.

“It's very rare that a District Court judge is going to second-guess himself or herself. But that doesn't mean the record they are creating won't [help] if it goes to the Third Circuit. Any good defense attorney is going to look to get an acquittal and at the same time look to add to the record,” Vartan said.

The mistrial motion could also help Menendez hone his public image and “have a counternarrative out in the media,” said Vartan. “Any time I've tried a case that's high profile, it's not a good idea to just put your head in the sand. I don't think there is anyone who is trying this case who is just trying it in the courtroom.”

Menendez is accused of accepting nearly $1 million worth of campaign contributions, hotel rooms and flights in a private jet and on commercial airlines from Melgen in exchange for applying the power of his Senate office to intervene with government officials in various personal and business matters on Melgen's behalf. Menendez is accused of advocating for Melgen in connection with his alleged overbilling of Medicare for $8.9 million, applying pressure on federal bureaucrats in connection with a conflict between Melgen and the government of the Dominican Republic over his port security business, and helping three overseas women friends of Melgen obtain U.S. visas.