The defendant, in the early morning hours of August 27, 1994, was driving around Bridgeport, Connecticut. He encountered a prostitute with whom he was previously acquainted. She got into his car expecting employment. He, on the other hand, apparently expected the job to get done but thought the service was free. As contract talks broke down, an altercation ensued. The defendant at one point choked her. Eventually they both rolled out of the car. She was able to escape, minus a few articles of clothing.

A little while later, the defendant encountered another denizen of the Night. A repeat of the earlier encounter unfolded. This time, however, the woman wound up lying on the pavement lacking more than clothes when discovered. She was also dead.

The defendant was found guilty of murder, attempted murder and unlawful restraint. He was then sentenced to a term of 75 years. He filed his appeal directly with the Connecticut Supreme Court pursuant to a statute allowing such appeals for convictions of certain felonies.

One issue on appeal was his waiver of Miranda rights when questioned by police, and his subsequent confession. The trial court’s exclusion of testimony by an expert who was to give evidence about Mr. Kaddah’s limited English language capability. This expert was a teacher of English as a second language at the University of Bridgeport.

The testimony would have indicated that although he spoke English with relative proficiency, his ability to understand written English was severely compromised. Thus, he didn’t understand the waiver that he signed and his statements should have been suppressed.

The Court wasn’t overly impressed by the argument since the transcripts of the tape-recorded session indicated that the defendant understood perfectly well what he was doing in giving a statement. Besides, the state may not have needed the confession; it was pretty obvious that stealth wasn’t Kaddah’s strong suit.

Not only was the first prostitute able to identify Kaddah, she knew where he lived. As to lucky girl number two, she was dumped in the middle of the street. While this was occurring, a couple in the house facing the street was awakening to a new day of productive labor in the America of the 1990s. The wife saw the defendant’s car, and about 30 minutes later, her husband saw the body in the road as he left for work.

The Court held that whatever defect there may have been in the defendant’s understanding of his rights, and the trial court’s refusal to address them was harmless error.