Is a defendant who fails to raise a timely objection to the finding that appellant should not testify before a jury forfeits the claim?

right,' or a right of any other sort, 'may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' " (United States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 731; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856.) Thus, "a defendant who fails to make a timely objection to the claimed misconduct forfeits the claim unless it appears an objection or admonition could not have cured any resulting prejudice or that objecting would have been futile." (People v. Abel (2012) 53 Cal.4th 891, 914.)

Appellant does not contend that an objection to the court's remark would have been futile. Instead, he argues that because trial counsel might have agreed that appellant should not testify for the same reason articulated by the court, appellant has no recourse in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He goes on to assert that the court has an obligation to ensure a fair trial, "the most fundamental of all freedoms." (Estes v. Texas (1965) 381 U.S. 532, 540.) That duty, appellant observes, includes "ensuring [a] properly instructed and impartial jury." We do not disagree with these general propositions. But regardless of the merits of appellant's arguments, they provide no basis for overlooking appellant's failure to preserve the issue for appeal by failing to raise it first in the trial court.