an unauthorized alternate juror is in the jury room, but the jury had not yet begun to deliberate. But here, it is a single issue. Everyone in the courtroom understood the judge’s intention, and respondent agreed to the procedure without expressing any reservations or limitations. Although the procedure employed by the trial court is not provided for in the Maryland Rules, the fact that it is not provided for explicitly, or even that the Rule is silent as to the procedure, does not mean that the parties and the court cannot agree to a different procedure than is provided for in the Rule. The majority says that the provisions of Rule 2-512(b) cannot be waived. In the context of preservation for appellate review, the majority is correct; failure to object at the trial (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Guevara, 823 F.2d 446, 448
holding that a defendant waives his right to object to a postsubmission substitution of an alternate juror when he voluntarily agreed to the procedure holding that a defendant waives right to object to a hearsay statement on confrontation grounds when he or she offers the statement holding that the late substitution of an alternate juror was not prejudicial to defendant because the district court had carefully instructed the alternate not to discuss the case before dismissing her and upon recall the alternate twice affirmed that she had complied with the courts instruction holding that wjhere the defendant knowingly consents to the addition of an alternate juror as was obviously the case here he waives any challenge to that procedure on appeal holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added