MCMORRAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF NEW YORK, v. TUSCARORA NATION OF INDIANS, ALSO KNOWN AS TUSCARORA INDIAN NATION. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 4. Decided May 16, 1960. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Reported below: 257 F. 2d 885. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, and Julius L. Sackman for appellant. Arthur Lazarus, Jr. and Eugene Gressman for appellee. Thomas F. Moore, Jr. for the Power Authority of the State of New York, as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. Upon the suggestion of mootness, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Per Curiam. HELM ET AL. v. ARIZONA. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. No. 768. Decided May 16, 1960. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Irving A. Jennings for appellants. Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Leslie C. Hardy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jay Dushoff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Syllabus. 362 U.S. LEVINE v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 164. Argued March 22, 1960.-Decided May 23, 1960. Subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury, petitioner refused, on grounds of possible self-incrimination, to answer questions relevant to the grand jury's inquiry. The grand jury sought the aid of the district judge, who heard arguments on the subject, ruled that petitioner would be accorded immunity as extensive as the privilege he had asserted, and ordered him to answer the questions. After returning to the grand jury room, petitioner persisted in his refusal, and he was again brought before the district judge, who addressed the same questions to him in the presence of the grand jury, explicitly directed him to answer them, and, upon his refusal to do so, adjudged him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year. During these proceedings, everyone was excluded from the courtroom except petitioner, his counsel, the grand jury, government counsel, the judge and the court reporter; but no objection to the exclusion of the general public was made at any stage of the proceedings. Held: In the circumstances of this case, exclusion of the public from the courtroom when petitioner was adjudged guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced did not invalidate his conviction. Pp. 611-620. (a) A proceeding for criminal contempt under Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not a "criminal prosecution" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, which explicitly guarantees the right to a "public trial" only for "criminal prosecutions." P. 616. (b) It was not error for the judge to clear the courtroom initially when the grand jury appeared before him for the second time seeking his assistance in compelling petitioner to testify; and, in light of the presence of petitioner's counsel and his failure to object to the continued exclusion of the public, failure of the judge to reopen the courtroom to the general public on his own motion before adjudging petitioner in contempt and sentencing him did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 616–620. 267 F. 2d 335, affirmed. 610 Opinion of the Court. Myron L. Shapiro argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was J. Bertram Wegman. Philip R. Monahan argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Robert S. Erdahl. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a prosecution for contempt arising from petitioner's refusal to answer a series of questions propounded to him by a federal grand jury. In every respect but one, this case is a replica of Brown v. United States, 359 U. S. 41, and as to all common issues it is controlled by that case. In Brown, however, we expressly declined to decide the effect of claimed "secrecy" upon proceedings culminating in the petitioner's sentencing for contempt. "because the record does not show this to be the fact." 359 U. S., at 51, n. 11. Here, it appears that the contemptuous conduct, the adjudication of guilt, and the imposition of sentence all took place after the public had been excluded from the courtroom, in what began and was continued as "a Grand Jury proceeding." The effect of this continuing exclusion in the circumstances of the case is the sole question presented. On the morning of April 18, 1957, pursuant to a subpoena, petitioner appeared as a witness before a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York engaged in investigating violations of the Interstate Commerce Act. He was asked six questions relevant to the grand jury's investigation. After consultation with his attorney, who was in an anteroom, he refused to answer them on the ground that they might tend to incriminate him. He persisted in this refusal after having been directed to answer by the foreman of the grand jury and advised by 362 U.S. Opinion of the Court. government counsel that applicable statutes gave him complete immunity from prosecution concerning any matter as to which he might testify. See 49 U. S. C. $ 305 (d). Later that day the grand jury, government counsel, petitioner and his attorney appeared before Judge Levet, sitting in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the grand jury having sought "the aid and assistance of the Court, in a direction to a witness, Morry Levine, who has this morning appeared before the Grand Jury and declined to answer certain questions that have been put to him." The record of the morning's proceedings before the grand jury was read. After argument by counsel, the judge ruled that the adequate immunity conferred by statute deprived petitioner of the right to refuse to answer the questions put to him. Petitioner was ordered to appear before the grand jury on April 22, and was directed by the court then to answer the questions. On the morning of April 22 petitioner appeared before the grand jury. The questions were again put to him and he again refused to answer. Once again the grand jury, government counsel, petitioner and his counsel went before Judge Levet, for "the assistance of the Court in regard to the witness Morry Levine." At this time the record shows the following: "The Court: Will those who have no other business in the courtroom please leave now? I have a Grand Jury proceeding. "The Clerk: The Marshal will clear the court room. "(Court room cleared by the Marshals.)" Petitioner, his counsel, the grand jury, government counsel and the court reporter remained. Petitioner objected to further participation by the court in the process of |