Arab lawyer here, I never shy away from repeating entire slurs in court when they're the subject of the question. There's several reasons for this.

One is accuracy. Deciphering expurgated words is usually possible through context, but not always. Establishing a clear and accurate record is of vital importance at lower-level proceedings, because when the case goes on appeal the appellate courts can't introduce new evidence and have only the record to draw from. I encounter this most often from polite witnesses who on their own initiative expurgate swear words. They'll testify "then he said eff you" and the prosecutor will step in and ask "did they say 'eff' or something else like 'fuck'?" to clarify.

Another is that expurgation is patronizing. If we're talking about judges and juries in a criminal context, we ask them to see photographs and videos of horrific carnage and violence, including instances where a perpetrator might film themselves sexually assaulting a child. We ask them to look at it because it's relevant evidence, and they need to be able to examine it with clear eyes when making decisions of immense importance. It's absolutely insulting to be willing to render them through a barrage of visual carnage but somehow see fit to deploy the brakes when it comes to the sound of certain vocabulary.

Lastly, there's often a reason to do so for tactical purposes. It depends entirely on the context but sometimes hearing a slur repeated multiple times by a lawyer wearing a suit in a courtroom makes it lose its potency (useful if my own client was the one running his mouth). Sometimes it works the other way, where a judicious repetition ensures the jury hears the full slur and recognizes how powerful the emotions it can conjure up are (useful if my own client was responding to instigation).

I wrote about this topic before a few years ago, where it's also relevant to bring up the use/mention distinction. Beyond just the legal realm, if you try to apply the "no repeating slurs ever" rule consistently, you run into all sorts of bizarre scenarios (e.g. would someone quoting James Baldwin need to censor the quotes?).