Not unless there is corroborating evidence to support the confession. Their prime suspect made 60+ confessions and is known to have been on the bridge with the victims----so that other confession is moot.
Not wanting to get in the weeds, but the D did not even produce the witness or make the argument in their written summary in support after the hearing. So why would the Judge take into account arguments that the defence didn't even make?
This is the whole problem with the Franks omnibus and various motions to dismiss - there are lots of things claimed that the D has not produced any evidence for. Then they quietly abandoned those arguments at the hearing ...
MOO