Dillon, supra; United States v. King, supra; Thompson v. Parker, 308 F.Supp. 904 (M.D.Pa.); Harkcom v. Parker, No. 1093 (M.D.Pa.1970); and see Williamson v. Alldridge, 320 F.Supp. 840 (W.D.Okla.) (dictum); contra, United States ex rel. Flemings v. Chafee, supra. Due process and other rights Lastly, appellant argues that he was denied Fifth Amendment due process, the right to indictment by grand jury and trial by petit jury, and was subjected to several disadvantages in military trial procedure and penalties which he says were less favorable to him than those provided by State law. He stresses trial for offenses carrying a death penalty possibility under military law as opposed to that of Alaska which allows no capital punishment. See Alaska Statutes Annotated .Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 650 (<HOLDING>) ; Eskridge v. Washington St. Bd. of Prison
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 holding that brady v maryland 373 us 83 83 sct 1194 10 led2d 215 1963 creates no government duty to disclose names of witnesses holding the rule that an accused has a right to counsel at any critical confrontation announced in united states v wade 388 us 218 87 sct 1926 18 led2d 1149 and gilbert v california 388 us 263 87 sct 1951 18 led2d 1178 not to be retroactive 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 holding the right to counsel extends to preliminary hearing where defendant enters a plea and such idea is put into evidence at subsequent trial white v maryland 373 us 59 83 sct 1050 10 led2d 193 to be retroactive