Trying on the Ritz

The point: Object to Trial Counsel voir dire that in effect seeks to get the members educated and to try the case in advance at voir dire. Unfortunately defense counsel didn't do that in United States v. Nieto, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0495/MC (C.A.A.F. Mar. 12, 2008), although I'm not sure the Nieto result wouldn't have been the same.
To steal a base from CAAFLog:

As Chief Judge Effron's majority opinion explains, "Before this Court, Appellant contends that the prosecution improperly sought to obtain from the panel members a commitment to convict Appellant based upon a hypothetical set of facts, that the commitment questions violated his right to be tried by an impartial panel, and that the military judge erred by permitting these questions." Id., slip op. at 10. There was no objection at trial, so the issue was reviewed under a plain error standard.

The majority observed that "[a]lthough this Court has addressed challenges for cause based upon answers provided by prospective members to hypothetical questions during voir dire, we have not heretofore addressed the scope of permissible questioning in this regard." Id., slip op. at 11 (internal citation omitted). CAAF declined to fill that vacuum in the Nieto case, basically punting until a better developed record comes along. CAAF did, however, cite some federal and state case law on the subject, perhaps trying to nudge the issue along a bit by providing some cites for trial-level counsel's use in litigating the issue. See id.

If you object, you will get to second base at least.