489 F.3d 26, 34-35 (1st Cir.2007); Hartford Enters. v. Coty, 529 F.Supp.2d 95, 98 (D.Me.2008). However, in “extraordinary circumstances,” abstention may be inappropriate: Extraordinary circumstances include those situations in which ‘core constitutional values are threatened during an ongoing state proceeding and there is a showing of irreparable harm that is both great and immediate.’ Maymo-Melendez, 364 F.3d at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted). Among those extraordinary circumstances are cases in which extreme bias completely renders a state adjudicator incompetent and inflicts irreparable harm upon the petitioner. [Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973)]; accord Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 125 n. 4, 95 S.Ct. 1524, 44 L.Ed.2d 15 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Esso II, 522 F.3d at 143. 1. Ongoing State
holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court recognizing hot pursuit exception as one example of exigent circumstances exception recognizing gibson bias as an example of the exceptional circumstances which warrant federal intervention holding that such a threat would not supply exceptional circumstances recognizing that exceptional circumstances implicating a criminal defendants constitutional rights might warrant breaching the attorneyclient privilege