could be made whether the motion implicated secret grand jury information. Id. at 153. 4. The Star Ledger also contends Fed. R.Crim.P. 6(e)(5) provides that contempt proceedings are presumptively entitled to public access, even when grand jury material is present. It cites a series of cases where courts have held that contempt proceedings should be open to the public. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); In re Iowa Freedom of Info. Council, 724 F.2d 658, 661 (8th Cir.1983) (“[T]he protection of the First Amendment extends to proceedings for contempt, a hybrid containing both civil and criminal characteristics.”); In re Rosahn, 671 F.2d 690, 697 (2d Cir.1982). But these cases only address the adjudicative process. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 273, 68 S.Ct. 499 (<HOLDING>); In re Rosahn, 671 F.2d at 697 (“[A] contempt
holding that a civil contempt defendant has a right to a jury trial when the act of contempt was not committed in the presence of the court and when the incarceration is in part punitive holding one man grand jury that held witness in contempt and sentenced him to prison was contempt proceeding to which there was a right to public access holding it was within the chancellors  discretion to find that though the husband was in contempt the contempt was not willful holding that due process encompasses the right to counsel in a civil contempt proceeding holding that in addition to statutory contempt powers city courts have inherent contempt power