Key Takeaways
- The Fish Hatchery parking lot was leased in June 2019, but it was not operational for hospital parking during the alleged January 2019 offense.
- Prosecution failed to establish essential proof of accessibility and use at the parking lot, impacting the credibility of their case.
- Operational proof matters in criminal law; courts require evidence of access and functionality to consider a location a valid crime scene.
- Barry County needs a Conviction Integrity Unit to review wrongful conviction claims and ensure reliable evidence is presented in court.
- This case highlights the importance of investigative duty and verifying facts before presenting them to a jury.
QuickFAQs
Yes. A lease was executed in June 2019.
No documented evidence shows operational use at that time.
Because the prosecution presented the lot as a functional crime scene requiring proof of availability, access, and use.
No.
The burden of proof in a criminal case belongs to the State. In one Barry County case, that burden was treated as optional.
Dean Terry Myers went to trial in 2022 for an alleged 2018 sexual assault, only to emerge with a sentence shaped less by evidence than by pressure, assumptions, and a refusal to test inconvenient facts. When Myers exercised his constitutional right to trial, the response was not careful scrutiny, but punishment.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to grant a new trial confirmed what the record has shown all along: this case was never properly investigated.
The timeline problems in this case were not abstract. They depended on real-world facts: when places were accessible, when people were present, and whether anyone bothered to confirm those details. Yet none of that verification appears in the investigative file presented to the jury.
To determine whether those checks were ever performed, Clutch Justice requested records directly from the City of Hastings and other public entities. What those FOIA responses revealed raises serious questions about how this case was built, and why so many basic facts went unexamined.
The Fish Hatchery Parking Lot Lease
What the Lease Actually Says — And Doesn’t Say
A review of the June 4, 2019 lease agreement between the City of Hastings and Spectrum Health Pennock reveals no security provisions governing the Fish Hatchery parking lot. The document contains standard language addressing term, maintenance, insurance, and indemnification.
It does not establish restricted access, monitoring requirements, gate-control procedures, lighting obligations, or police enforcement protocols.
In other words, the lease created a contractual relationship. It did not transform municipal park property into a secured hospital-controlled facility.This matters because the parking lot was presented at trial as a functional, accessible crime scene. Yet no evidence was introduced to show that the lot was operational for hospital use at the relevant time, that access was restricted, or that security measures were in place. The absence of such provisions in the governing lease further underscores a larger investigative failure: foundational assumptions about the location were never verified.
A crime scene cannot be assumed into existence. It must be proven.
The Frame Correction That Changes Everything
Here are two facts that can coexist:
- A lease was signed in June 2019.
- The lot was not operational for hospital parking in January 2019.
Conflating those two is not a minor error. It is a structural one.
A lease is paperwork.
A crime scene requires function.
And function requires proof.
The Legal Problem With the Parking Lot Theory
The prosecution did not mention the Fish Hatchery parking lot as a background detail. It was introduced as the working location tied to the alleged offense, and the conviction was largely hinged around whether the park gate was open.
That requires evidence of:
- Operational status
- Actual use
- Employee or public access
- Realistic opportunity during the alleged window
None of those were established at trial. Hastings Police Detective Larson introduced the location without verifying:
- When hospital employees began parking there
- Whether the walking path was active in January 2019
- Whether gates were open or monitored
- Whether the lot was functioning for its intended purpose
A simple municipal verification could have resolved this. It was not done. That is not harmless oversight. It is investigative omission.
As an interconnected side note, I always found it odd that the City of Hastings was never sued for liability.
The Impossible Triangle
Now layer in the uncontested incarceration timeline:
- Dean Terry Myers was incarcerated from January 17, 2019 to February 6, 2022.
- The alleged offense is narrowed to January 9, 2019.
The State’s theory depends on:
- A location not yet operational
- A defendant whose incarceration window sharply limits plausibility
- A shifting timeline retrofitted to preserve narrative coherence
That is not evidentiary strength.
That is narrative patching.
When a date is selected because it is the only remaining viable date rather than because it is supported by independent verification, credibility begins to erode.
Why Operational Proof Matters
In criminal law, opportunity is not theoretical. It must be real.
Courts consistently recognize that opportunity requires access and functionality. A location cannot serve as a credible crime scene without proof that it was open, in use, and realistically accessible.
Investigative tunnel vision occurs when:
- A theory is formed first
- Contradictory facts are minimized
- Gaps are filled with assumption
The parking lot theory shows these markers.
The Supreme Court Context
The relief granted by the Michigan Supreme Court did not arise from a single stray detail. It arose from record integrity concerns.
When timelines, physical feasibility, and investigative omissions accumulate, appellate courts evaluate whether the record as a whole can be trusted.
Here, the parking lot is not a side issue. It is a credibility indicator.
Manufactured Plausibility vs. Verified Reality
The larger pattern is straightforward:
- A narrative was constructed.
- Dates and locations were selected to reduce friction.
- Basic verification steps were not completed.
When municipal records, operational timelines, and incarceration records are aligned, the structure does not hold.
Wrongful convictions rarely collapse because of dramatic revelations. They collapse because the calendar refuses to cooperate.
It’s Time for a Conviction Integrity Unit in Barry County
Barry County needs a Conviction Integrity Unit.
Not as a public relations shield.
Not as a symbolic reform.
As a structural safeguard.
Conviction Integrity Units, often housed within prosecutors’ offices, are designed to review claims of wrongful conviction, evidence suppression, investigative error, and forensic or timeline irregularities. When they function properly, they do one thing well:
They check the math before someone loses another decade of their life.
Across the country, jurisdictions have implemented CIUs in response to documented patterns of tunnel vision, Brady violations, flawed forensic testimony, and unreliable investigative assumptions. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, prosecutorial or investigative misconduct plays a role in a significant percentage of wrongful convictions.
Barry County has now seen:
- Appellate intervention from the Michigan Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
- Record inconsistencies and timeline disputes
- Claims of investigative omission
- Credibility conflicts tied to unverified municipal facts
When record reliability becomes a recurring theme rather than an isolated incident, internal review is no longer optional. It is responsible governance.
A properly structured Conviction Integrity Unit would:
- Conduct independent review of contested convictions
- Audit investigative steps and evidentiary foundations
- Examine whether exculpatory material was overlooked or minimized
- Review timeline feasibility and operational facts in alleged crime scenes
- Recommend corrective action when errors are identified
Importantly, a CIU does not undermine public safety. It strengthens it. Public trust is not preserved by doubling down on flawed cases. It is preserved by demonstrating that accuracy matters more than ego.
If the State’s case is strong, it will survive scrutiny.
If it is not, justice demands correction.
Barry County does not need defensiveness; it needs review.
Convictions must be reliable, not merely final. And when the calendar, the records, and the operational facts do not align, someone inside the system should be required to ask why.
That is what a Conviction Integrity Unit is for.
Why This Case Matters
None of this, of course, is about parking logistics.
It is really about:
- Investigative duty
- Prosecutorial obligation
- The requirement to verify before presenting to a jury
If a location’s operational status was never confirmed, yet it was presented as fact, that is not a harmless gap. It is a structural defect.
When the State builds a case, it bears the burden of proving availability, access, and opportunity. Paper existence is not functional proof.
And when you check the math, the math does not work.
Sources
- Michigan Supreme Court opinions and remand orders
- Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE 401–403)
- Kassin, S. M. et al. (2025). Police-induced confessions and tunnel vision. Psychological Science in the Public Interest
- Findley, K. A. & Scott, M. S. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review
