in Hasbajrami v US* (2014) Gleeson J
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15162773381651164648&q=hasbajrami+v+us&hl=en&as_sdt=3,44 recognized "where the defendant has been induced to plead guilty by egregious misrepresentations or other serious misconduct, a court may find that the defendant was deprived of his ability to plead guilty voluntarily"

2/ Gleeson granted withdrawal for different reason: that defendant "was not sufficiently informed about the facts", in particular, that the govt had given FISA notice without FAA notice. The precise particulars of misinformation seem less relevant than principle.

3/ Gleeson observed that "the legal argument Hasbajrami might have made was predicated on a fact that he could not have known without government disclosure." Presumably this applies to many issues in Flynn case.

4/ Gleeson also pointed to the following.

5/ Hasbajrami has pled guilty to providing material support to terrorists. Gleeson seems far more concerned about their rights, than rights of a Trump-supporting 33-year military veteran, with incidents of actual heroism - even as a teenager.

6/ it's amazing to observe that Gleeson recognized that, Hasb received relevant information subsequent to guilty plea, that guilty plea was "significant barrier" to potential arguments available to defendant and therefore gave opportunity to defendant to withdraw plea.

7/ Flynn's case seems parallel, even stronger. Relevant evidence was turned over to Hasba voluntarily by prosecution, but was resisted and withheld by van Grack. If Sullivan were following example procedure offered by Gleeson to accused terrorist, upon recent production of

8/ so much exculpatory material by prosecution, Sullivan should have "directed [Flynn] to file a letter informing the Court whether ...he wishes to withdraw his guilty plea in light of the [new information] and any other developments in the case". As Flynn had already requested.