of counsel case, that court’s inherent supervisory power over courts is well settled); State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629, 650 (Utah 1995) (advising, pursuant to inherent supervisory power, that trial courts should be more conservative when making for-cause determinations regarding potential jurors in capital eases); State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 407 n. 7 (Utah 1994) (stating that language changes made in other cases to burden of proof instruction were undertaken pursuant to court’s supervisory power over lower courts); State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1266, 1271-72 (Utah 1993) (observing that court has “inherent supervisory authority over all courts of this state” and invoking that authority to establish appropriate standards of review); State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 857 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 965 (Utah
holding courts have inherent authority to compel compensation for an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding pursuant to courts inherent supervisory power over courts that counsel with concurrent prosecutorial obligations may not be appointed to defend indigent persons recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals