The defendant was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and charged with burglary. At the police station, he telephoned his mother and asked her to come to the station to post bail. Instead, his mother immediately called the family attorney. In the meantime, the police had begun questioning the defendant. Although he never told the police to stop the questioning, his answers were at first vague or clearly unresponsive. During the course of the questioning, the family attorney phoned the station and told the police that she had been hired to represent the defendant and would be there in half an hour. The police did not inform the defendant of the attorney's call. Ten minutes later, the defendant admitted to committing the burglary, and signed a statement to that effect prepared by the police. The attorney arrived a few minutes later and advised the defendant to remain silent, but he told her that he had already signed a confession. How should the court rule on the attorney's pretrial motion to exclude the confession as evidence at trial

There are three types of confession that cannot be used. Each will be explained, and the one that has to do with the example will be explained further.

Firstly, Unlawful questioning. If the defendant is not given all knowledge of their legal protections (such as their Miranda rights, or right to remain silent, & right to a attorney). It is found in the example given, quote: The police did not inform the defendant of the attorney's call (and therefore he did not know whether or not he should remain silent or not).

Secondly, Involuntary or coerced statements. As the police did not wait until the lawyer is present and did not read the defendant all their rights, then all the statements are essentially coerced, or persuaded out with threats. As they are forced out and are not voluntary, they cannot be used as evidence.

~

The third one does not have to do with the case, but if you want to know, it is Privileged statements. In this case, privileged statements are not used, and so it will not be part of your answer. However, certain relationships that require honesty cannot be used as evidence against you. Privileged statements include statements with your doctor, your religious leader, or even your own laywer(s). In this case, it is not entirely used, and so it would be left out.

Learn more about legal confessions, here:

https://brainly.com/question/1179152?referrer=searchResults - Miranda vs Sate of Arizona ruling.