abatement). However, under my view that our citizens have the right to an unbiased and impartial grand jury, a propter affectum challenge would be a proper means of contesting grand juror bias. Otherwise, the right rings hollow. 3. Challenging Grand Juror Bias Pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-110, “[a] 11 pretrial motions, including demurrers and special pleas, shall be filed within ten days after the date of arraignment, unless the time for filing is extended by the court.” This statute, which post-dates all the cases cited by the majority for the position that propter affectum challenges cannot be raised post-indictment, makes no distinction based on the type of motion, or whether the challenge is propter defectum or affectum. See State v. Dempsey, 290 Ga. 763, 765 (1) (727 SE2d 670) (2012) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a pretrial motion challenging grand
holding that a regulation implementing a statute that was no longer valid did not have a legislative foundation holding that recklessness even for fiduciaries is no longer sufficient holding that once a petitioners prior removal order has been reinstated he no longer qualifies for any relief under the ina regardless of whether his application was filed before or after the reinstatement decision was made holding that any prior requirement that a propter defectum challenge be made preindictment is no longer valid under ocga  177110 holding that twostep sequence is no longer an inflexible requirement