Georgia Supreme Court Remands Murder Case For Speedy Trial Reconsideration: Key Lessons From Kitchens V. The State

As a Georgia criminal defense attorney with over 25 years of experience fighting for clients’ rights, I always keep a close eye on decisions from the Georgia Supreme Court that impact constitutional protections in Criminal Cases. On July 1, 2025, the Court issued an important opinion in Kitchens v. The State (S25A0788), vacating part of a trial court’s order and remanding the case for a fresh look at the defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim. This ruling underscores the complexity of speedy trial analyses and serves as a reminder of how critical it is for defendants to assert their rights early and vigorously. Let’s break down the case and what it means for those facing serious charges in Georgia.

Case Background

Deonte Kitchens was convicted in 2016 of malice murder, felony murder (which was vacated by operation of law), violations of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a first-offender probationer. These charges stemmed from the October 29, 2011, shooting death of Alveno Culver in Bibb County. Kitchens was arrested on November 3, 2011, but wasn’t indicted until October 2014 (with a reindictment in November 2015), and his trial didn’t start until September 26, 2016—nearly five years after his arrest.

After his conviction, Kitchens filed a motion for new trial, arguing (among other things) that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion in January 2025, but Kitchens appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court focused solely on the speedy trial issue, declining to address his other claims until the trial court resolves this one properly.

The Speedy Trial Framework: Barker V. Wingo Revisited

The Court reaffirmed the two-part test from Barker v. Wingo (1972) and Doggett v. United States (1992) for evaluating constitutional speedy trial claims:

• Threshold Inquiry: Is the delay “presumptively prejudicial”? Delays over one year generally qualify, triggering a deeper analysis.
• Four-Factor Balancing Test:
  • Length of the delay (beyond the presumptive threshold).
  • Reasons for the delay.
  • Defendant’s assertion of the right.
  • Prejudice to the defendant.

Trial courts must balance these factors sensitively, considering the case’s unique circumstances. Appellate courts review for abuse of discretion but will vacate and remand if there are clear factual errors or legal misapplications.

In Kitchens, the delay exceeded one year, so presumptive prejudice applied. However, the Supreme Court found multiple errors in the trial court’s balancing:

• Length of the Delay: The trial court didn’t explicitly calculate the delay (from arrest in 2011 to trial in 2016) and conflated this factor with the presumptive prejudice threshold. It also failed to assess if the delay was “uncommonly long” given the case’s complexity (a murder with gang allegations). The Court noted that serious cases tolerate some delay, but this oversight was a “significant misapplication of the law.”
• Reasons for the Delay: The trial court got this mostly right, weighing it lightly against the State. The case was complex, involving reticent witnesses, conflicting statements, jail contraband phones, and a wiretap order. There was no evidence of deliberate stalling by the prosecution—just investigative necessities. The Supreme Court agreed this factor shouldn’t weigh heavily against the State.
• Assertion of the Right: Here’s a big error—the trial court found Kitchens never asserted his speedy trial right, weighing this heavily against him. But the record showed his counsel filed a constitutional speedy trial demand on August 8, 2014. While the Court noted this was a “pro forma” demand filed nearly three years after arrest (and not pursued further), overlooking it entirely was “clearly erroneous.” Private letters to his lawyer didn’t count, as they don’t notify the court or State.
• Prejudice: The trial court acknowledged presumptive prejudice but weighed this factor heavily against Kitchens due to lack of actual prejudice (e.g., no evidence of oppressive incarceration beyond normal, undue anxiety, or impaired defense like lost witnesses). Kitchens claimed a potential eyewitness died and the State gathered more evidence during the delay, but he didn’t show what the witness would have said or how the extra evidence harmed his case. However, the Supreme Court noted that a proper delay calculation might increase the weight of presumed prejudice, potentially tipping this factor.

Because of these errors, the Supreme Court couldn’t say the trial court would have reached the same conclusion with correct facts and law. They vacated the denial of the new trial motion (on the speedy trial ground) and remanded for reanalysis. Kitchens can renew his other appeals if the claim is rejected again.

The opinion also highlighted an eight-year post-conviction delay in ruling on the new trial motion, calling it inefficient but not a due process violation since Kitchens didn’t raise it.

What This Means For Georgia Criminal Defendants

This case is a win for due process, emphasizing that trial courts must meticulously apply the Barker factors. For defendants:

• Assert Your Rights Early: Don’t wait years to demand a speedy trial—file promptly after arrest or indictment to avoid this factor weighing against you.
• Document Everything: If delays occur, build a record showing prejudice, like lost evidence or witnesses.
• Complexity Matters: In serious cases like murder or gang-related charges, some investigative delay is tolerated, but excessive waits can still violate your rights.

Prosecutors and judges should take note: Sloppy speedy trial analyses will lead to remands, prolonging cases and wasting resources.

If you’re facing criminal charges in Georgia and worried about trial delays, or if your case has dragged on, Contact me at George Creal Law. I’ve handled hundreds of cases involving constitutional rights violations, and I can help evaluate if a speedy trial motion is right for you. Call (770) 961-5511 or visit our website www.georgialawyer.com for a Free Consultation. Stay informed, stay protected.

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. Case outcomes depend on specific facts.