been excused was excused. See Ross, 487 U.S. at 88, 108 S.Ct. 2273. The deprivation that remains in this cireumstance is the loss of the peremptory challenge. Thus, the harm to be evaluated is the harm attributable to the loss of one of the statutorily limited-in-number peremptory challenges. See State v. Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Iowa 1993). 1 25 Second, in Novotny, the court appears to have regarded the error at issue in a case such as this as the deprivation of a peremptory challenge. See Novotny, I 14 (referring to the "erroneous ruling on a challenge for cause adversely impacting the defendaﬁt’s ability to shape the jury through peremptory challenges"), 122 (same), 128 (referring to the "violation of our statutes and rules prescribing the use of peremptory challenges"), 1 27 (<HOLDING>). As discussed, such a deprivation is not a
holding that the defendant was precluded from asserting error where the defendant had used all of his peremptory challenges and did not ask for more holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner holding that where a defendant does not use all of his or her peremptory challenges the defendant may not complain of prejudice for failure to dismiss prospective jurors holding that allowing a defendant fewer peremptory challenges than authorized or than available to and exercised by the prosecution does not in and of itself amount to structural error