the right into a requirement. Harrod’s dispute is with a matter of substance, not form. The only pretrial motion Harrod could have filed with respect to the indictment would have been a motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense. Although Harrod could have brought such a motion, failure to state an offense falls within the class of indictment defects that need not be brought before trial. See, e.g., United States v. Foley, 73 F.3d 484, 488 (2d Cir.1996) (objection that indictment failed to set forth elements of bribery may be treated as a jurisdictional defect and addressed on appeal whether or not raised in trial court); United States v. Forbes, 16 F.3d 1294, 1297 (1st Cir.1994) (objection that indictment failed to state essential element of offense can be raised f ir.1986) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Chodor, 479 F.2d 661, 664
holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that defendant was not entitled to the similitude instruction under  472 where facts indicated an overt attempt to pass an altered federal reserve note holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction holding that government may prove facts outside the overt acts alleged in the indictment