Okay, actually two:

1) Defense attorney VD's (I just love the way that looks) on the old definition of BRD. Can I object to this?

2) The "jury of one" (I really hate this one). Defense attorney VD's on, hold to your guns. Any response? I kind of feel this is okay, but it smacks of jury nullification.

You can definitely object to the attorney instructing them on a legal definition that is no longer in effect. Its irrellevant, confusing, and cannot possibly lead to a valid reason to strike for cause. I've heard plenty of attorneys allue to the fact that it used to be legally defined and that now there is no specific definition. But if they try to give the old definition you should object.

I think the "stick to your guns" questioning is permissible because it qualifies them on convicting only if BRD is met and on the requirement of a unanimous verdict.

(1) Sure, you can object that it's not an accurate statement of the law because it was disavowed by CCA in Geasa.

(2) I don't think you can object to it. But in your own voir dire, you could try quoting SCOTUS a little:
"It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment, or that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally honest and intelligent as himself." - Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501 (1896).

The jury is expected to deliberate. The Supreme Court has said that the object of the jury system is to deliberate in an attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. (See Allen and Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 382 (1999).) While a juror should never feel intimidated or forced by another into changing his vote, the system also does not contemplate a juror who makes up his mind in the box and goes into the juror room refusing to listen to anyone. I would educate jurors during your voir dire about the importance of this role and that they should all be willing to discuss the evidence and what it all means in the juror room in order to come to a verdict. Do a good job on that and you undercut the whole "jury of one" pablum that the defense will follow with.