With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". such a restrictive application could be given the case, the impact would likely be substantial. The range of time and offenses involved, and the size of our military forces underscore the effect of ret-roactivity on the administration of justice. The difficulties and dangers in reopening large numbers of such cases obviously argue with great force for prospective application of O’Callahan. In sum we are persuaded that the criteria under Supreme Court decisions justify and strongly call for limiting to prospective application the ruling in O’Callahan v. Parker. We agree with the view of the District Judges in these proceedings and those of the several courts that have reached a like conclusion. See Gosa v. Mayden, supra; Mercer and Paroles, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 (<HOLDING>). 9 . Alaska does provide for indictment by

A: holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in douglas v california 372 us 353 83 sct 814 9 led2d 811 to be retroactive
B: holding the rule requiring that counsel be furnished in proceedings for probation or imposition of deferred sentence as announced in mempa v rhay 389 us 128 88 sct 254 19 led 2d 336 to be retroactive
C: holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in gideon v wainwright 372 us 335 83 sct 792 9 led2d 799 to be retroactive
D: holding that indigents have a right to a transcript on appeal as announced in griffin v illinois 351 us 12 76 sct 585 100 led 891 to be retroactive
D.