This actually sounds somewhat like what the American justice system is *supposed* to be like. The goal is justice, not understanding by the jury. Both sides present their best cases - hopefully both do so competently so that lay people can understand what the important facts are. The jury then decides the various disputed points based on that evidence and their understanding as lay people. Experts are supposed to explain things to them clearly.
The judge's actions also appear correct. His job is to facilitate the understanding that the jury forms of the evidence. If something seems muddy to him then he can expect it to be muddy to the jury and the presenting side can, as in this case, present that part more clearly.
The counsel of the side not presenting the muddy breakfast menu may be displeased when the judge causes that to be explained again more clearly.
At the end of the day, jury needs to have enough understanding to know which side should prevail on which issues and also to decide the penalty.