dissenting.
In my view, the findings of the District Court in this case cannot be said to be “clearly erroneous.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52 (a); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 394-395.* Given those findings, there was no constitutional violation in the selection of the grand jury that indicted the respondent. Upon that basis I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I add only that I am in substantial agreement with the dissenting opinions of The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Powell.
The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the review of facts found by a district court in a habeas corpus proceeding. Wade v. Mayo, 334 U. S. 672, 683-684.