With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decided and there was no reference to evidence being considered. The record, as now completed, thus appears sufficient as to all contentions raised in both cases. 2 . Sehlomann’s petition in No. L-1003 alleged that he was off the post and that the offenses were civil offenses against civilians, committed in Alaska and not military offenses. The record is unclear as to allegation and denial that he was on pass, but we feel we should treat his pleading as so alleging. In any event, Schlomann’s appeal brief asserts he was on pass and this is not denied by the Government, which concedes also that the offenses were not service connected. In No. L-1003 the Court appeared to treat the offenses as non-service connected and denied relief on the ground that O’Callahan was n 40, 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (<HOLDING>) ; Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 523

A: holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
B: holding that testimony of witnesses absent from the jurisdiction shall not be used unless good faith effort has been made by the state to secure appearance of the witnesses as announced in barber v page 390 us 719 88 sct 1318 20 led2d 255 to be retroactive
C: holding that lay opinion testimony of witnesses was helpful and admissible to identify the defendant as the bank robber depicted in a surveillance photo as the witnesses were more familiar with the defendants appearance than the jury
D: holding that criminal defendants are entitled to obtain for impeachment purposes statements made by government witnesses to government agents that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses direct testimony
B.