which include the appeal process, appear adequate to redress the alleged constitutional deprivation they have alleged. Regarding this final requirement, the court notes that under state law, a defendant convicted in justice court has an absolute right to appeal to county court or circuit court, where he is entitled to a trial de novo and where court rules indisputably provide defendants a meaningful and effective procedural mechanism for the disclosure of exculpatory evidence. See Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146 (1927) (criminal defendant can raise federal questions in the state court with the right to appeal to the highest court of the state and to the Supreme Court of the United States); Ballard v. Wilson, 856 F.2d 1568, 1571 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); DeSpain v. Johnston, 731 F.2d 1171, 1177 (5th
holding that because the plaintiff had not exhausted his state court appeals abstention was appropriate because virtually all of the evils at which younger is directed would inhere in federal intervention prior to completion of state appellate proceedings holding that because the federal plaintiffs claims were essentially derivative of the state defendants younger abstention applied holding younger abstention inapplicable where the suit is in no way designed to annul the results of a state trial and the relief sought is wholly prospective holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional holding that younger abstention was appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate process