Judy Miller + broad questioning = mistrial?

TM suggests that based on the NY Times reporting of Ms. Miller's turn on the stand yesterday that such is possible:

The Times has coverage nearly as breathless as mine and uses the word "mistrial":
The day ended with an extraordinary argument by lawyers for both sides, as well as a lawyer for Ms. Miller, over whether Mr. Jeffress could ask her if she had other sources she spoke to about Ms. Wilson. The question, which was left unresolved by Judge Reggie M. Walton until Wednesday, threatened to derail the trial over the very constitutional issue that saw Ms. Miller go to jail in 2005.

Judge Walton seemed disinclined to allow questions about Ms. Miller’s other sources. “I appreciate that there is an interest the media has in not having questions asked that aren’t germane to this case,” he said. But if he does allow them, and she refuses to answer, she could be held in contempt once again and a mistrial could result.

Still wondering exactly why we're here to begin with...and of course my second thought is just how many heads would explode if that happened?