Opinion ID: 712277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probation Officer Conflict of Interest

Text: 24 As the final issue on appeal, Morris contends that because the court-appointed probation officer had an application pending at the United States Attorney's office responsible for this prosecution during the sentencing proceeding, the probation officer had an impermissible conflict of interest under United States v. Oduloye, 924 F.2d 116 (7th Cir.1991). As we stated in Oduloye, we find the specter of such a potential conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest on the part of a court-appointed judicial officer to be highly disturbing. See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) ([T]o perform its high function in the best way 'justice must satisfy the appearance of justice' ). Appellate counsel admitted at oral argument that this issue had not been raised before the district judge. It does not appear on this record that the defendant suffered any actual prejudice. Without a determination by the district judge, and absent exceptional circumstances, this court should not pass on this issue. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877-78, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); United States v. Norris, 34 F.3d 530, 532 (7th Cir.1994).