Using the Duke LaCrosse Case in Voire Dire?

Has anyone tried using the Duke LaCrosse case in voir dire?  I wonder if judges would allow a statement going something like this: "As the Duke LaCrosse case illustrates, people are often indicted for the wrong reasons.  Can you, Juror No. 1, make room for the possibility that Mr. Defendant was charged for some ulterior reason?"  It seems to me that it would be an entirely permissible line of inquiry for voire dire.

After all, the Duke LaCrosse case simply confirms what we've known for decades: Prosecutors are political animals, and prosecutions often occur for extra-legal reasons.