as well as this is my impression. I can’t necessarily give any more than that, and I tend to think that she would be too intelligent for the case. When the court denied the peremptory challenge, Johnson’s attorney expressed his disagreement with the court’s ruling. Counsel further stated that he would “probably try” to strike Darias again before the conclusion of voir dire, that he “may come up with a better reason” for striking her, and that he “may ask her some more questions.” However, counsel did not pursue his challenge of Darias and she was ultimately seated on the jury without objection by Johnson. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Johnson waived any objection to the court’s disal-lowance of his peremptory challenge. See Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993) (<HOLDING>); Schummer v. State, 654 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st
holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection holding that defendant waived his objection to the prosecutors use of her peremptory challenges by failing to make a contemporaneous objection during jury selection holding that defendant waived any objection to a peremptory strike against a minority juror by affirmatively accepting jury immediately prior to its being sworn without reserving earliermade objection holding objection to jury selection process waived where not raised until after entire panel had been sworn holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant