to be in the jury room to insure that there would be a sufficient number of jurors to enable the jury to reach a verdict in the event any of the original jurors could not continue their service. The judge clearly was not engaging in a “feel good” or reward gesture for alternate jurors’ having sat through the entire trial. Everyone in the courtroom understood the goal of permitting the alternates in the jury room. The majority opinion sees two separate issues here—one, the presence of alternates during the jury deliberations, and two, the substitution of those alternates for regular jurors after deliberations have begun. It may well be that there can be separate issues, under certain circumstances, such as when an appellate court is considering whether reversal is required th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Affirming the trial court in this case does
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 rules of appellate procedure are obviously procedural in nature 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 failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal 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