Does the Attorney General have grounds to dismiss a motion to excuse a juror for misconduct?

Defendant made no motion to excuse the juror for misconduct, and the Attorney General argues his failure to object that the trial court's inquiry was deficient forfeits his appellate challenge. (See People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228, 1250 [failure to object implies tacit approval of trial court's handling of alleged misconduct].) According to defendant, he had no opportunity to object because the trial court set the terms for the juror interview without input from counsel and without giving counsel the chance to argue for additional questioning. But "no decision has suggested counsel must be allowed to examine witnesses on the misconduct issue." (People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 538.) And the fact that the court asked the foreperson and juror questions is not tantamount to declaring counsel could pose no objections nor offer suggestions to the court for further inquiry. The court may have permitted counsel to question the juror had the request been made, or counsel could have submitted questions for the court to ask the juror, but failed to pursue this course. In any event, even assuming arguendo counsel had objected to the adequacy of the court's inquiry, there is no merit to defendant's claims on appeal.