When you object to something you are asking that the members not hear a piece of testimony or see a piece of evidence–right? Right?
So why then do you let the Trial Counsel (or defense counsel) discuss that with the military judge in front of the members? I see this on a regular basis as I read records of trial–I’m reading one now where there was three pages worth of discussion in front of the members. Yes it’s a hassle to excuse the members and the witness while you have a discussion about admissibility.
So, by letting this happen you allowed members to hear the objected to testimony, then they got to hear the TC explain (argue to them) why it was relevant and necessary, and they got to hear you why it was prejudicial.
So, if the MJ overrules the objection, maybe less of a problem. But what if the MJ sustains the objection???? The members have just heard the testimony, been told why it proves guilt, and told to forget it>?>?>?>