of the grand or petit jury, failure of the magistrate to follow the Criminal Rules, misjoinder of offenses or defendants, duplicity, multiplicity, and defects in an indictment or information that go to matters of form rather than substance” (footnotes omitted) as “waived if not promptly raised”). The government, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), argues that Harrod intentionally relinquished and abandoned a known right in light of the fact that he used a pretrial motion with respect to the initial 18 U.S.C. § 472 indictment. Harrod’s awareness of his right to file a similar motion with respect to the superseding § 474 indictment does not, however, tran Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912, 94 S.Ct. 254, 38 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 829
holding that the appellant developed his argument sufficiently to raise the issue for appellate review holding that evidence of landowner supervising design and construction of building sufficient ot submit issue of control to the jury holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that bogus bills lacking serial numbers and a treasury seal sufficiently resembled real currency under  474 to submit to the jury the counterfeit issue holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiffs request to instruct the jury on all its claims and to submit a special verdict form and by instead requiring the plaintiff to elect between its statutory antitrust claim and its common law tort claims to be submitted to the jury