in abatement based on disqualification propter affectum to challenge grand juror bias is not possible because grand jurors may in fact be biased; there is no right to an unbiased grand jury and therefore no proper means for challenging such. See Garnett v. State, 10 Ga. App. 109 (1) (72 SE 951) (1911) (explaining that the grand jury is merely a court of inquiry and the disqualification of a grand juror cannot be achieved by plea bias is proper. Furthermore, to the extent that pre-indictment motions do not qualify as “pretrial motions” under OCGA § 17-7-110, they wouldstill be proper because they were filed before the indictment was issued. We have recognized that if any propter affectum challenge exists at all, it must be made before the indictment is issued. Bitting, 165 Ga. at 63, 64 (<HOLDING>); Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347 (3) (16 SE
recognizing that it may be appropriate in a particular case to challenge grand juror bias holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose holding that a challenge propter affectum was not a good ground for a plea to abate the accusation but noting that it is proper for the court to hear challenges to grand jurors based on bias and partiality in advance of the grand jurys action holding that extension of a federal grand jurys term was within the discretionary powers of the district court holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury