Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 5 . We have also examined United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 91 S.Ct. 1041, 28 L.Ed.2d 434, which afforded retroactivity to Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889, and Grosso v. United State, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed. 2d 906. We feel that the Coin & Currency case is different in that it involved a constitutional immunity barring any punishment. O’ Callahan, on the other hand, involved no such constitutional immunity from punishment, but a question of jurisdiction of State or military courts to hear the case. See Gosa v. Mayden, supra 450 F.2d at 758-759. 6 . Among the decisions denying retroactivity to cases recognizing new constitutional rules are: Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (<HOLDING>) ; DeStefano v. Woods, supra (holding the rule 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the guarantee against double jeopardy applicable to the states as announced in benton v maryland 395 us 784 89 sct 2056 23 led2d 707 to be retroactive (B) 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 (C) holding the rule against adverse comments on a defendants failure to testify as violative of the privilege against selfincrimination announced in griffin v california 380 us 609 85 sct 1229 14 led2d 106 not to he retroactive (D) holding the rule on the scope of per missible searches incident to arrest announced in chimel v california 395 us 752 89 sct 2034 23 led2d 685 not to be retroactive (E) 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
Output (English): (D)