Some context. Suppose the prosecutor enters into evidence body camera footage from a police officer. On the tape, the suspect makes a lewd remark, and another officer offers a witty comeback. The jury laughs.
The defense objects, arguing the part from the lewd comment is not relevant, and the judge agrees, and strikes the offending material from the record, which is the lewd comment, and comeback.
The next day, the officer who made the comeback testifies, having been absent the first day. When asked to identify which officer he was on the tape, the officer repeats his witty comeback, not knowing that the jury is supposed to be forgetting that part.
What happens now?
Does the judge prod the questioning attorney/witness to phrase/answer the question in such a way to avoid the stricken material?
Does the judge reverse her/his earlier ruling, arguing that if a witness needs to refer to the event, then it is relevant?
Or does the judge do something else entirely?