Yes. But this appears to be one of those rare instances where a family member armed with nothing more than moral suasion got a confession from a represented accused that the police could never have gotten without some sort of pretrial agreement.
Hacking's attorney, Gil Athay, was and is pretty much powerless to prevent this sort of thing from happening. He probably told Hacking not to tell a soul anything, including and perhaps especially members of Hacking's family, but if Hacking chooses to disregard the advice, that's his choice.
Unless the brothers obtained the confession at the urging or request of the police there is no constitutional basis for challenging the confession. All Athay can do now is attack the reliability of the confession (that Hacking lied just to get his brothers off his back etc) or the credibility of the brother(s) (they're making it all up etc).
Athay can still defend Hacking against a murder charge, but it's a lot tougher now.
True True. I guess I had never thought that Althay would tell him not to talk to his family. Either way I say Kudos to the Hacking family for being strong, and having the courage to stand up for the truth. Obviously this is a trait that seemed to skip Mark.
I can't believe that Athay will actually try for an acquittal. You notice, he has challenged some of the "evidence" published in the press, but he has never said Hacking didn't do it. There really isn't an effective "insanity defense" in Utah. But he may attempt to avoid the death penalty.
If Hacking has any kind of a conscience left, he won't drain his dad's bank account with a phony defense.