When will the prosecution argue that defendant waived his right to object to the excusal of juror three?

The prosecution disagrees on two grounds. First, the prosecution contends defendant waived his claims by failing to object to juror three's excusal before the trial court. Second, the prosecution contends that, in any event, the trial court's action was not based on religious discrimination but rather on a reasonable concern about juror three's offensive odor and its potential detrimental impact on other jurors' ability to competently discharge their duties. We address each of these contentions in turn, keeping in mind that, " '[i]n general, the qualification[s] of jurors challenged for cause are "matters within the wide discretion of the trial court, seldom disturbed on appeal." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 655-656 [People v. Holt].)