How have courts dealt with a motion by a defendant seeking to reopen jury selection following the swearing in and swearing in of alternate jurors?

Next, in Armendariz, we considered a claim by the defendant that, following the trial court's discharge of two regular jurors prior to the selection and swearing in of the alternate jurors, the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion to completely reopen jury selection to allow him to exercise his remaining peremptory challenges against the remaining regular jurors already sworn. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard (People v. Armendariz, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 581, 209 Cal.Rptr. 664, 693 P.2d 243), we found that the trial court in that case was unaware of its authority to reopen jury selection, and that had it been aware of that authority, it could not reasonably have denied the defendant's motion (id. at pp. 581-583, 209 Cal.Rptr. 664, 693 P.2d 243). On that ground, we reversed the judgment rendered against the defendant and remanded the matter for a new trial.