for mistrial"). A challenge for cause is waived if counsel does not use reasonable diligence during jury selection to determine whether the grounds for such a challenge exist. People v. Lewis, 180 Colo. 423, 428, 506 P.2d 125, 127 (1973); People v. Backus, 952 P.2d 846, 852 (Colo.App.1998). Counsel is reasonably diligent if he or she takes the opportunity to question the prospective juror adequately. Ma v. People, 121 P.3d 205, 209 (Colo.2005); see also People v. Cevallos-Acosta, 140 P.3d 116, 121 (Colo.App.2005) (declining to address for the first time on appeal issue of whether prospective juror was presumptively biased, because defense did not raise a challenge for cause based on § 16-10-108(1)(k), C.R.S.2006); cf. United States v. Diaz-Al bertini, 772 F2d 654, 657 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Here, defense counsel did not initiate the
holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial holding that litigants have a duty to disclose their objection to a prospective juror by promptly bringing the matter to the attention of the trial court holding that where the defense peremptorily challenged a prospective juror and the prosecutor merely stated that she would challenge that strike the states objection was sufficient to allow inquiry into whether the juror was being challenged for nonracial reasons where the trial court clearly understood that the objection was that the challenge had been exercised because of the prospective jurors race holding that where possible juror misconduct is brought to the trial judges attention he or she has a duty to investigate and to determine whether there may have been a violation of the sixth amendment