the case,” a juror will not be disqualified unless he cannot set aside the initial impressions). We find the members’ initial reactions to Appellant’s crimes to be neither unreasonable nor unexpected. Cf. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639 (noting that an “important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public” so most jurors will have “formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case”). And importantly, the members’ voir dire responses indicated that their initial reactions would not impact their view of the case or affect their decisions in the course of the court-martial. Therefore, the members’ initial reactions did not provide the military judge with a sua • sponte basis to dismiss the challenged members. See Calley, 22 C.M.A. at 538, 48 C.M.R. at 23 (<HOLDING>). E. Venue Appellant asserts that his trial
holding after careful consideration of voir dire that none  had formed unalterable opinions about appellants guilt from the publicity holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that absence of defendants from part of voir dire discussing trial publicity with prospective jurors was error under rule 43 holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal