[freeandfreezing]

Taking the plea deal doesn't prevent the defendant from later attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, the jurisdiction of the court, prosecutorial misconduct in withholding exculpatory evidence, etc.

That's not true in general. A plea deal almost always ends any opportunity the defendant has to raise any issues or defenses.

[Dr. Franklin]

That's not true in general. A plea deal almost always ends any opportunity the defendant has to raise any issues or defenses.

It doesn't end the opportunity for a defendant to raise issues or defenses, but it certainly limits them. A plea deal is considered like a contract. If the prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence, the plea can be revoked. Sydney Powell did this in her representation of Gen. Mike Flynn which caused the government to move to dismiss the charges. The facts alleged by the prosecution must also support the charge. If a defendant pleads guilty to murder, but the prosecutor's facts only justify J-walking, the guilty plea is irrelevant because the charges aren't supported by the facts. Subject matter jurisdiction is also not waivable, since the court exceeds its ability to act. Ineffective assistance of counsel is another collateral attack to a guilty plea. The defendant can't be punished for his attorney not doing his job properly. The criminal justice system does not favor the criminal defendant and many judges don't want to hear such arguments, but that doesn't mean they can't be made, or won on appeal.