William J. Brennan, Jr.

“ For the purpose of applying the clearly-erroneous standard in the instant case, we deem controlling the findings of the second district judge. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the first hearing did not conform to our mandate in Campbell I because Staula was not called to testify; and the hearing was unsatisfactory in other respects. [8] Moreover, while Toomey's testimony at the second hearing did not contradict his earlier testimony, it was considerably more detailed. ”

“ We cannot say, therefore, that the second district judge's finding that the Interview Report was a copy of a written statement made and adopted by Staula was clearly erroneous. [11]
Our holding today only gives effect to the 'command of the statute (which) is * * * designed to further the fair and just administration of criminal justice * * *.' Campbell I, 365 U.S., at 92, 81 S.Ct., at 425, 5 L.Ed.2d 428. [12] Petitioners-Alvin R. Campbell and Arnold S.C.ampbell, brothers, and Donald Lester-were convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to long prison terms. ”

“ We declined to order petitioners' convictions vacated, but remanded 'to the trial court with direction to hold a new inquiry consistent with this opinion * * * (and) supplement the record with new findings * * *.' 365 U.S., at 98-99, 81 S.Ct., at 428, 5 L.Ed.2d 428. On remand the trial judge held a hearing at which Toomey but not Staula testified. Toomey gave the following testimony: On the day following the robbery he interviewed Staula privately. Staula was a depositor of the bank and had been an eyewitness to the crime. ”