individual and institutional abuse.” Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 365, 98 S.Ct. at 669. In order to protect prosecutorial impartiality, a trial court has the power to disqualify a Commonwealth’s attorney from proceeding with a particular criminal prosecution if the trial court determines that the Commonwealth’s attorney has an interest pertinent to a defendant’s case that may conflict with the Commonwealth’s attorney’s official duties. See People v. Hamilton, 46 Cal.3d 123, 141, 249 Cal.Rptr. 320, 328, 756 P.2d 1348, 1357 (Cal.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 1176, 103 L.Ed.2d 238 (1989); 63A Am.Jur.2d Prosecuting Attorneys § 30-32 (1984); 27 C.J.S. District and Prosecuting Attorneys § 12(6) (1959); see generally T.J. Griffin, Disqualification of Prosecuting Attorney on 67) (<HOLDING>). The specific due process right implicated
holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that an attempt by a prosecuting attorney to serve two masters violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment recognizing that the integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment