We cannot conclude that the lower court manifestly erred when it denied appellants cause challenge to a federal prosecutor whose responses to voir dire questioning did not otherwise indicate an inability to be fair and impartial in the proceeding below. See Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67, 70 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913, 105 S.Ct. 3540, 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985) and habeas corpus denied sub nom, Davis v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1986); Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984) and grant of habeas corpus reversed sub nom, Lusk v. Dugger, 890 F.2d 332 (11th Cir. 1989).

Affirmed.

GODERICH and GREEN, JJ., concur.

(specially concurring)

The defendant did not renew his motion to strike the juror in question immediately before the jury was sworn. Consequently, I agree that the judgment and sentence of the lower court should be affirmed. Mitchell v. State, 620 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 1993); Milstein v. Mutual Security Life, Ins. Co., 705 So.2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Because the issue was not preserved for appellate review, I do not believe it is necessary to address the substantive issue presented. Accordingly, I concur in result only.