$19.75 millionVerdict

Six Bystanders Win $19.75 Million After Denver Officer Fires Into LoDo Crowd

Verdict · Denver District Court (2nd Judicial District), Rey et al. v. Ramos, Case No. 2023CV30724 · 2025

Won by Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers.

A Denver jury awarded $19.75 million to six bystanders shot by a Denver Police officer who fired into a crowd while pursuing an armed suspect in the LoDo neighborhood in July 2022.

What happened

On the night of July 17, 2022, Denver Police Officer Brandon Ramos fired his service weapon at a armed suspect, Jordan Waddy, near 20th and Larimer Street in Lower Downtown Denver. Ramos was positioned to the side of Waddy rather than behind him, and when he pulled the trigger, his rounds traveled into a crowd of bystanders. Six people standing nearby were struck. None of the injuries were life-threatening, but all six plaintiffs suffered lasting physical and psychological harm.

In January 2024, Ramos pleaded guilty to a single count of third-degree assault covering all six victims; he received 18 months of probation and lost his Colorado Peace Officer certification. He later resigned from the Denver Police Department. The criminal case, however, did not resolve the civil claims brought by the six injured bystanders.

The civil case, filed in Denver District Court as Rey et al. v. Ramos (Case No. 2023CV30724), went to trial in October 2025 before Judge Andrew Patrick McCallin. John Lee of Fuicelli and Lee Injury Lawyers served as co-counsel alongside Siddhartha Rathod of Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC and attorneys from Viorst Law Offices PC. The trial team included several junior attorneys who handled major trial responsibilities, including opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments.

The jury found Ramos liable to all six plaintiffs and returned a verdict of $19.75 million on October 17, 2025. The jury assigned no comparative fault to Waddy. Plaintiffs Yekalo Weldehiwet, Bailey Alexander, Willis Small IV, Mark Bess, Angelica Rey, and Ayla Bersagel were each awarded damages.

No post-verdict reduction or appeal was reported as of the date of publication.

Sources

This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.