Yeah this is the part that it becomes clear that the defense is all mouth and no trousers as we say over this side of the Atlantic.
If the prosecution evidence was so shaky they wouldn't be calling hearings every 5 minutes pleading for it to be not allowed, instead of relishing the opportunity to bring it down in front of the jury. Attorneys love being able to show they've got strong arguments to show the other side are the baddies and change the jurors' minds, instead of trying to have it all hidden.
This was a fine example today when they didn't want CNN played because it was too prejudicial but also claimed it was irrelevant. As Judge Smith said, it can't be both and the case against a defendant is by its very nature prejudicial against him so that's not an argument. Merritt's own words and he wanted them hidden, not because of editing or trickery. He was asked a question and he responded to it.
JMO