Grounds for declaring a mistrial, which would have been the second in the case of Irina Malinovskaya, surfaced on Wednesday, but Judge James Vaughn declined to do so.
The judge also rejected a proposal to lessen the charge against Malinovskaya.
During her testimony, Malinovskaya burst out into tears, declared her innocence and elicited a response from a male audience member, who responded, "Yes, you did" kill Zlotnikov.
Such conversations between witnesses and courtroom audience members are prohibited when a trial is in session, according to Lawrence Connell, a member of the Delaware State Bar Association.
This misconduct could have caused a mistrial if the judge had decided to rule it.
Judges generally call mistrials "when justice is not preserved" in the courtroom, usually because of "misconduct" that results from actions of the prosecution, Connell said.
But because the Malinovskaya - the defendant - prompted the misconduct, Connell said it is not surprising that the episode had few, if any, ramifications.
Later on Wednesday, prosecutor Bill George requested that the court reduce Malinovskaya's charge from first-degree to second-degree murder, but Vaughn quickly dismissed the idea.
"In Delaware, first-degree [murder] is defined as intentionally causing a killing, . [while] second-degree [murder] is a reckless killing," Connell said. "Reckless means that it's not with intent to cause the person's death."
George argued that Malinovskaya did not plan on killing Irina Zlotnikov, but ultimately did so in a jealous rage.
Connell said George's move may have been based on the fact that "a jury is more easily satisfied with second-degree murder."
But Vaughn quickly dismissed the possibility and said the forensic evidence - which points to bludgeoning and strangulation - "clearly" shows that Zlotnikov's murder "was a not a reckless one."
