divide those functions into three categories: investigative, advocatory (or prosecutorial), and adjudicative. Although there is little potential for bias when the investigative and advocato-ry functions are combined, the potential for impermissible bias when either the investigative or the advocatory function is combined with the adjudicative function is more readily apparent, see Allison, Process-Value Analysis at 1167-68, particularly as the case becomes more accusatory in nature. Id. at 1180. The natural suspicion is that adjudicators may be disposed to act favorably toward their employers. In a formal criminal context, for instance, it would be inappropriate for an adjudicator to be employed as a part-time prosecutor. Cf. State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 856-57 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, examining the question in the
holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity holding that a prosecutor was disqualified from bringing a recidivist proceeding even though the prior offenses in which the prosecutor served as defense counsel were public matters holding parttime prosecutor barred from acting as defense counsel holding absolute immunity protects prosecutor from liability for failing to give defense counsel materially exculpatory evidence holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness