From the mistrial hearing transcript:

Motions in limine hearing, July 5th, the day after the holiday. After that date, several times, including on July 11th, and I invite counsel to disagree with me if he does, but on as recently as July 11th at 3:11 p.m., is when we finally got the government's marked exhibits. It's not that we've had them for weeks and weeks and weeks. We never got them despite repeated requests, please give us your marked exhibits, and I don't think government counsel will disagree, until the 11th Hour. And then they moved them in rapidly this morning, and then suddenly we see it on the screen.

So, post Your Honor's rulings, we asked for new exhibits. So, in relation to Your Honor's last comment, we had asked for those repeatedly. And Mr. Durham apologized and cited resource constrictions at the U.S. Attorney's office for why we didn't have them. We understood, under Your Honor's general order, we were to have them three days before the trial. So, we have been pestering, I think that's a fair verb, probably how they would characterize my e-mails, we have been pestering them for marked exhibits in the wake of Your Honor's ruling before and since.(my emphasis)

I don't think the Government forgot to redact the tape because they were busy with other things. I think, from the prosecutor's statement at the mistrial hearing, they made an intentional decision not to redact the tape. The prosecutor thought he could get away with the unredacted tape because Laura Pettitte's words were recited by the Congressman in a question to Roger Clemons, rather than by Laura Pettitte herself. And I think that arrogance made the Judge even angrier:

[I]n the first instance, the obligation of doctoring those exhibits to make sure that my ruling was not, was not violated rests with the government.

MR. DURHAM: We're not evading any responsibility, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why wasn't this altered in order to ensure that this information that I had ruled could not come in would not be played to this jury and shown to them?

MR. DURHAM: This exhibit is in the context of a question that is asked to Mr. Clemens specifically.

THE COURT: That doesn't override my ruling.

The prosecutor had his argument in response to Hardin's anticipated objection all rehearsed. So rehearsed, that when the judge asks him why he didn't redact the exhibit, he responds instead with why the tape was admissible and not covered by the Court's ruling. What we have here is a prosecutor who, despite rulings from the judge that evidence is inadmissible, intentionally introduces it anyway. He never said he forgot, he argued it was outside the judge's ruling.

The Government is asking the Court to rule without a hearing. The double jeopardy ban with respect to retrials is so narrow, I won't be surprised if the Court rules in the Government's favor.

The law is pretty clear that even when the prosecution goads the defense into asking for a mistrial, unless that was their intent, it won't bar a new trial. Egregious conduct (such as putting in clearly inadmissible evidence) if caused by an intent to have a better chance of winning the trial (as opposed to an intent to cause the defense to ask for a mistrial because they think they're losing and want to start over with a new jury) won't do it.

I don't think the prosecutor was trying to goad a mistrial. I do think he was trying to unfairly obtain a conviction at the trial underway by purposely introducing inadmissible evidence in a back-door attempt to evade the judge's ruling. He was probably expecting the defense to object, which is why he didn't stop playing the tape immediately upon hearing the Congressman repeat Laura Pettitte's statement. When they didn't, the Judge stepped in, and he was hoisted on his own pertard.

So will the Judge allow a retrial? Probably, unless he thinks outside the box. A discussion of the defense arguments is here. Background on the mistrial and how it happened is here.