On each such occasion, no objection was made by defense counsel to appellant’s absence, and appellant, who was aware of the announced procedure for selecting a jury, witnessed the bench conferences, and heard the discussions concerning the challenged members’ qualifications and the judge’s rulings, remained silent. Appellant’s failure to voice any objection to her absence from the bench conferences, either directly or through counsel, constituted acquiescence to her absence. See Smith, 298 Ga. at 409-410 (2) (concluding that defendant acquiesced in removal of juror during his absence where he knew about the process by which jurors could be removed and was present when juror’s removal was discussed, yet he raised no objection); Heywood v. State, 292 Ga. 771, 774-775 (743 SE2d 12) (2013) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. State, 274 Ga. 637, 639 (3) (555
holding that the failure by a criminal defendant to invoke his right to be present  at a conference which he knows is taking place between the judge and a juror in chambers constitutes a valid waiver of that right holding that defendant acquiesced in inchambers conference occurring in his absence when trial court discussed the subject of the conference and its ruling and neither defense counsel nor defendant raised an objection holding error if any was not preserved regarding questions proposed at bench conference but disallowed because the record does not reveal what was said at the bench holding that defendant acquiesced to counsels waiver of right to be present at bench conference where trial judge advised everyone in courtroom including defendant about the topic of the bench conference and defendant raised no objection to his absence holding defense counsel waived objection where he remained silent despite the district courts specific inquiry during a side bar conference whether there were any concerns about closing the courtroom to the public