In Gaona v. State, 630 P.2d 534 (Alaska App. 1981), the defendant claimed that the prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the grand jury and actively discouraged the grand jury from considering a potential self-defense argument. The Court held that these claims regarding the indictment and grand jury process were forfeited because they were not raised before trial. The Court explained that, if a valid attack on the indictment is filed in a timely manner under Criminal Rule 12, then the State will generally be able to cure the defect and reindict the defendant. But if we allow a defendant to challenge an indictment for the first time on appeal, "the prosecution would frequently be unfairly prejudiced" because "there would be a strong temptation for counsel to withhold these motions until appeal." The Court ultimately held that an appellant who requests that we recognize a grand jury challenge as plain error "bears a heavy burden to convince us that we should depart from the normal rule that pretrial motions should be filed before trial and passed upon by the trial court." The Court explained the rationale of Rule 12's requirement that attacks on an indictment be raised before trial. The Court noted that, if an attack on the indictment is filed in a timely manner under the rule, and if the superior court (or the State) believes that the defendant's claim has merit, the State will generally be able to cure the defect and reindict the defendant. But if appellate courts allowed defendants to attack their indictment for the first time on appeal, the prosecution would frequently be unfairly prejudiced. ... Witnesses who testified at the grand jury or trial might not be readily available to testify again; certainly their recollection of ... events would have dimmed. If we allow attacks on indictments for the first time on appeal, there would be a strong temptation for counsel to withhold these motions until appeal. (Gaona, 630 P.2d at 537.)