Some nights pass so quietly that nobody remembers them. Cars come home. Lights flip on. Dinner plates clink, then get stacked in the sink. In one house on a calm Acworth street, bedtime came with a small protest, a story read twice, and a toddler finally giving in to sleep. That ordinary night mattered more than anyone realized.

It was the last time the house functioned as it was intended to. No warning arrived. By morning, people would say everything looked fine from the outside. That is how this story begins, with a night so ordinary that it managed to conceal everything.

Ordinary, Real Lives

 

Justin Hicks was a firefighter, a job built on long hours, physical risk, and routine discipline. Coworkers described him as reliable and focused, someone who showed up prepared and took the work seriously. Amber Hicks worked outside the home and followed a consistent schedule that made her absence immediately noticeable.

Together, they managed the everyday pressures of work, childcare, and daily responsibilities without drawing attention to themselves. The couple lived in Acworth, Georgia, in a modest home suited for a young family. Friends and relatives described a stable household centered on their two-year-old son. There were no reports of marital conflict, financial distress, or ongoing disputes.

The Day They Died

On November 17, 2021, the first sign of trouble came from absence, not noise. Amber did not show up for work, something coworkers immediately noticed because it was out of character. Phone calls went unanswered. Text messages showed as unread. As the morning passed, concern grew among family members who knew the couple kept consistent routines and communicated regularly.

Inside the home, the violence had already occurred. There were no emergency calls placed from the house and no reports of noise from neighbors. The couple’s daily routine ended abruptly, without warning, leaving only silence behind to signal that something had gone terribly wrong.

Entry From the Back

When investigators later examined the house, they quickly focused on how the killer got inside. Evidence showed forced entry at the rear of the residence. The back door area displayed signs consistent with someone entering without permission. There was no indication that the victims opened the door for the person who entered.

The lack of disturbance at the front of the house supported this conclusion. Police determined the entry was deliberate. This detail significantly narrowed the investigation, pointing away from spontaneous conflict and toward a planned intrusion. The method of entry became one of the first concrete facts guiding detectives as they reconstructed the crime.

The Shootings

Inside the home, Justin and Amber were both shot and killed on the main level. Investigators found no evidence of a prolonged struggle. The shootings were direct and fatal, leaving little opportunity for either victim to escape or call for help.

The attack focused solely on the two adults present. Nothing indicated that the killer moved upstairs or searched the house extensively afterward. This supported later findings that the suspect did not know a child was inside. The absence of additional victims and the confined nature of the violence suggested the attack had a specific, limited scope rather than random destruction.

Alone Upstairs

The couple’s two-year-old son was upstairs asleep during the shootings. He remained there as the killer left the house. At some point later, the child came downstairs on his own. What happened next was documented through police reports and body camera footage.

The child attempted to interact with his parents, touching and cuddling them, in an effort to elicit a response. He was covered in blood and still wearing unchanged diapers, indicating he had been alone for hours. Despite this, he was physically unharmed. Investigators confirmed there was no evidence that the attacker encountered or knew about the child’s presence in the home.

Growing Concern

As the hours passed with no reply, worry hardened into alarm. Missed work, unanswered calls, and unread messages broke the couple’s routine. Family members agreed that something was wrong. Justin’s father chose to drive to the house himself, expecting a simple explanation but preparing for the possibility that one might not exist.

When he arrived, the silence felt unnatural. Small details meant trouble before he fully stepped inside. He stopped and called the authorities instead of entering further. Police treated the call as a welfare check and responded immediately. Once inside, officers confirmed the couple had been killed. Within minutes, concern over the missing contact became a confirmed homicide investigation.

The Scene Secured

Police secured the residence and located the child, who was taken to safety and medically evaluated. Officers confirmed the deaths and documented the scene. The home was treated as a homicide site, with evidence photographed, collected, and logged.

The rear entry point, the victims’ locations, and the child’s condition all became critical parts of the case file. Investigators reconstructed the timeline, focusing on when the attack occurred and who could have entered unnoticed. By the end of the day, the focus had shifted entirely toward identifying a suspect. The quiet house became the center of an investigation that would soon expand beyond the neighborhood.

Attention Turns Nearby

Investigators looked at who had access, familiarity, and proximity. The forced rear entry meant someone who knew the layout of the house or felt comfortable approaching it without drawing attention. There was no sign of theft, which reduced the likelihood of a random burglary. Detectives focused on the immediate area, speaking with neighbors and reviewing who was present around the time of the killings.

Matthew Scott Lanz lived nearby, close enough to observe routines without difficulty. During early interviews, officers noted unusual behavior and statements that stood out from those of other neighbors. While nothing at that stage proved guilt, proximity combined with behavior placed him on the investigative radar.

Reconstructing the Timeline

Police worked to establish when the murders occurred and how long the house remained undisturbed afterward. Cell phone data, work schedules, and communication records helped narrow the window. Amber’s failure to arrive at work provided a key marker. From there, investigators traced backward to determine when contact last occurred.

Surveillance footage was reviewed to track movement in and out of the neighborhood. While no camera captured the killings themselves, the timing of the activity helped place potential suspects in the area. The reconstruction showed that the attack had occurred earlier in the day, allowing hours to pass before it was discovered. This timeline supported findings about the child’s prolonged isolation inside the house.

Statements That Raised Concern

During interviews with the police, Matthew made remarks that investigators found unusual and inconsistent with what witnesses had reported. He claimed he had seen “demonic lights” inside the Hicks home and described the house itself as disturbing. Officers documented these comments but did not treat them as factual evidence. Instead, they were recorded as part of his statements.

Investigators also evaluated his behavior before and after the killings. They reviewed his movements, interactions with others, and explanations for his whereabouts. While statements alone cannot prove guilt, contradictions and abnormal explanations help guide further investigation. These interviews helped focus the detectives as they collected physical and circumstantial evidence.

Physical Evidence Considered

Investigators focused on the rear entry point, ballistic evidence, and the condition of the crime scene. Firearms analysis linked the type of weapon used to later incidents involving the suspect. Entry damage was consistent with forced access rather than accidental breakage.

At the same time, police acknowledged limits. There was no clear fingerprint or DNA evidence directly tying Matthew to the interior of the house. This absence became a key issue later in court. Investigators relied on a combination of scene reconstruction, weapon evidence, timelines, and behavior rather than a single forensic link. The case was built cumulatively, not based on a single piece of evidence.

What Was Not Found

Defense attorneys later emphasized what police did not have. There was no eyewitness to the killings. No video captured the suspect entering the house. No blood or DNA conclusively placed him inside at the moment of the crime. These gaps were real and acknowledged during the investigation.

Prosecutors countered that the absence of certain evidence does not negate the totality of facts. Many crimes are proven through circumstantial evidence rather than direct observation. Investigators documented all missing elements carefully to avoid overstating conclusions. Transparency about limitations became essential as the case moved toward trial, ensuring claims stayed within what could be proven.

Building the Case

 

By the time prosecutors filed charges, investigators had compiled a case based on multiple converging facts. These included the suspect’s proximity to the home, alignment with the established timeline, evidence of forced rear entry, ballistic connections, and documented statements made during interviews. No single piece of evidence was presented as decisive on its own. Instead, detectives relied on how each part supported and strengthened the others when considered together.

The police were clear that evidence rather than assumptions drove their conclusions. Although no motive was established, investigators noted that motive is not legally required to pursue a murder charge. With the investigative phase complete, responsibility shifted to prosecutors.

No Proven Motive

From the start, investigators were clear about one thing. No proven motive emerged. There was no financial gain, no personal dispute, and no known relationship between the victims and the accused beyond proximity. Prosecutors acknowledged this openly. In criminal law, motive can help explain behavior, but it is not required to secure a conviction if evidence shows who committed the act and how.

This absence shaped how the case was presented. Rather than speculate, authorities focused on actions and outcomes. The killings were treated as intentional regardless of why they occurred. Investigators documented the lack of motive carefully to avoid assumptions.

Claims of “Demonic Lights”

During interviews with police, Matthew made statements that investigators described as unusual. He claimed to have seen “demonic lights” inside the Hicks home. These statements were recorded but not treated as factual observations. They were presented as part of the suspect’s own explanations rather than evidence of external events.

Prosecutors later referenced these claims to illustrate the accused’s state of mind, not to establish motive. Courts are careful when addressing such statements, separating belief from fact. The claims did not explain the killings and did not excuse them. They instead highlighted that the suspect offered reasons grounded in perception rather than reality.

Fixation on the House

Investigators uncovered indications that Matthew had fixated on the Hicks property itself. Statements suggested he viewed the house as troubling, independent of the people living inside it. This fixation was not tied to any documented conflict with the victims.

Police treated this information cautiously. Fixation alone does not establish intent or guilt. When combined with forced entry and targeted violence, it helped explain why the house may have been selected. Prosecutors emphasized that the focus remained on actions, not beliefs. The fixation was contextual, offering background rather than justification. Courts avoided interpreting it as a motive, keeping the analysis grounded in demonstrable conduct.

The Earlier Break-In

The investigation revealed that Matthew’s brother had previously broken into the same property years earlier, when different residents lived there. This fact was verified through reporting and records. At the time, the incident was isolated and unrelated to later events.

Prosecutors introduced this history carefully. The earlier break-in established a factual connection to the location, not to the victims. Courts are cautious about using family history, and this detail was not used to imply shared intent. Instead, it helped explain why the property may have been known to the accused. The distinction mattered. The case did not rely on guilt by association; instead, it was based on documented events.

A Separate Tragedy

Months before the Hicks murders, Matthew’s brother was involved in an unrelated violent incident in Washington, D.C. During that event, he fatally stabbed a police officer and later died by suicide. The incident was extensively reported and formally documented, making it a verified part of the public record rather than speculation.

During the later trial, this history was acknowledged but handled with strict limits. Prosecutors did not claim the earlier crime caused, justified, or directly influenced the murders in Georgia. The court treated the information as background context only. Judges were careful to distinguish between the two events both legally and factually. One tragedy was not used to explain another.

Context, Not Cause

By the end of the motive phase, the court’s position was clear. Background information provided context, not cause. No motive was proven, and none was legally required. The killings were evaluated based on evidence of entry, violence, and responsibility. This distinction shaped the trial moving forward.

Jurors were not asked to understand why the crime happened, only whether the accused committed it. Prosecutors avoided psychological conclusions. Defense arguments highlighted the absence of motive, but courts have long held that unexplained violence can still meet the legal standard for conviction. With the motive addressed and limited, the case proceeded fully to trial.

Choosing a Bench Trial

When the case moved to court, Matthew waived his right to a jury trial. Instead, the case was decided through a bench trial, meaning a judge alone evaluated the evidence and determined guilt. This choice altered the course of the case. There would be no jury deliberations, as there would be no need to persuade twelve people with varying backgrounds.

The burden rested on whether the prosecution could meet the legal standards before a single fact-finder. Bench trials are chosen when cases hinge on technical evidence, require legal interpretation, or when emotions could influence the jury. The trial focused on evidence, timelines, and testimony rather than narrative appeal or sympathy.

How the Trial Worked

The bench trial proceeded methodically. Prosecutors presented evidence piece by piece, knowing the judge would scrutinize relevance and admissibility closely. Witnesses testified under oath, and objections were ruled on immediately without sidebars or jury instructions. The pace was steady and procedural.

The judge was responsible for evaluating credibility, weighing circumstantial evidence, and applying the law directly to the case. There were no opening theatrics or dramatic summations intended to evoke emotion. Every claim required support. This format placed pressure on both sides to stay precise. The absence of a jury also meant the final decision would come without a deliberation delay, once testimony and arguments concluded.

Testimony From the Father

One of the most significant witnesses was Justin Hicks’s father. He testified about the concern that arose when communication stopped, and Amber missed work. His account established the timeline leading to the welfare check and discovery of the crime scene. This testimony was factual, focused on actions taken rather than emotional reaction.

Law enforcement officers followed, describing what they observed upon entering the home. They detailed the location of the victims, the condition of the child, and the steps taken to secure the scene. These accounts were central to establishing what happened after the killings and confirmed the prolonged period during which the child was alone in the house.

Law Enforcement Evidence

Investigators testified about the forced rear entry, the absence of theft, and the reconstruction of the crime timeline. Firearms and ballistic evidence were introduced, linking the weapon type used in the Hicks killings to later incidents involving Matthew. Officers explained how they tracked movements, statements, and behavior following the murders.

Prosecutors emphasized cumulative evidence rather than a single decisive element. The judge heard how physical findings, timelines, and statements aligned. Investigators were careful to acknowledge gaps, including the lack of direct DNA or fingerprint evidence inside the home. This transparency was intended to strengthen credibility rather than weaken the case.

The Prosecution’s Strategy

The prosecution’s strategy focused on responsibility rather than motive. They argued that forced entry, targeted shootings, the suspect’s proximity, statements, and weapon evidence collectively established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of theft and the focused nature of the attack supported the conclusion that the killings were intentional.

Prosecutors avoided speculation about mental state or psychological diagnosis. Instead, they highlighted actions taken and outcomes produced. They reminded the court that motive is not a legal requirement for conviction. The case rested on whether the evidence proved who committed the killings and how they were carried out. In their view, the evidence met that standard.

The Defense’s Response

The defense focused on what investigators could not prove. Attorneys argued there was no direct forensic evidence showing Matthew was inside the Hicks home at the time of the killings. They highlighted the absence of eyewitnesses, fingerprints, or DNA evidence, which would have placed him at the scene.

Lawyers also questioned the strength of circumstantial links and said other explanations had not been entirely ruled out. They pointed to limits in the investigation and warned against relying too much on behavior or unusual statements. The defense did not have to prove innocence. Its goal was to create reasonable doubt. The judge had to decide whether those gaps outweighed the prosecution’s overall evidence.

Guilty on All Counts

After hearing all the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the judge delivered a clear ruling. Matthew was found guilty on all charges. These included two counts of murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of cruelty to children, and one count of tampering with evidence, among additional offenses.

The verdict reflected the court’s conclusion that the cumulative evidence proved responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge determined that forced entry, the manner of the killings, the timeline, weapon evidence, and the defendant’s statements together established guilt. With the verdict entered, the case moved to sentencing, the final phase of the legal process.

The Sentences Imposed

At sentencing, the court imposed three life sentences, two of them without the possibility of parole. In addition, Matthew received 32 years in prison for remaining charges. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, meaning they would be served one after another, not simultaneously.

Legally, this ensured the defendant would spend the rest of his life in prison. Consecutive sentencing removed ambiguity and prevented future sentence reductions from altering the outcome. The court emphasized the severity of the crimes, particularly the killing of two parents inside their home while a young child was present. The sentence closed the criminal case in full.

What the Verdict Meant

The ruling confirmed several critical legal points. It showed that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a conviction when the facts are consistent and support one another. It also reinforced that proving a motive is not required to find someone guilty of murder. In addition, the court emphasized that crimes causing serious harm, especially when a child is involved, carry severe legal consequences.

For the family, the verdict did not erase the loss, but it brought an end to uncertainty. For the court, the decision fulfilled its duty to hold someone accountable. Although appeals were still possible, they were limited in scope. The case moved from active proceedings into a permanent legal record.

A Case Closed

The case began with silence. A missed workday. Unanswered messages. It ended with a conviction built on facts, not speculation. Justin and Amber Hicks were killed in their home by a neighbor who entered through force and acted deliberately. Their child survived, unharmed physically, because the attacker did not know he was there.

No motive was proven. No explanation fully answered why it happened. The court addressed what could be proven and imposed the strongest sentence allowed by law. What remains is the record: a clear timeline, a documented investigation, and a final judgment. The story does not end in mystery, but in accountability.