{"active":false,"first_name":"Ronald","last_name":"Barcus","race":"White","gender":"Male","rank":"POM","command":{"command":"CD EPES"},"shield_no":25889,"ended_date":"2019-01-02","taxid":"889544","complaint_ids":[200303697,9904241,9902165,9803647,9802234,9700527,9601191,9401836,8803863],"command_history":[{"command":"081 PCT","id":"81pct"}],"appt_date":"1986-07-15","lawsuits":[{"name":"Deberry, Eric vs City of Ny, et al.","start_date":"2022-02-01","disposition_date":"2024-11-15","payout_amount":9450000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"21CV05117","court":"U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY","summary":"On July 23, 1999, Defendant Detective Patricia Tufo coerced an individual injured in a shootout into falsely identifying Plaintiff as the perpetrator of the shooting. Defendant Tufo did so by repeatedly telling the individual that she would cause him to be imprisoned on felony charges if he did not agree to identify Plaintiff as the shooter. Prior to this, Defendant Tufo had received an anonymous tip of the perpetrator matching a different description -- nonetheless she insisted the injured individual to identify Plaintiff as the perpetrator. On August 4, 1999, Defendant Tufo conducted a line-up where the individual falsely identified Plaintiff as the perpetrator. Defendant Tufo then closed the investigation. On August 14, 1999, an anonymous caller called to report the name of the perpetrator and that he had been bragging about the shooting. Defendant Tufo accessed the named perpetrator's photo, which indicated that the description of the perpetrator Defendant Tufo had previously received was consistent with the photo of the named individual. Nonetheless, Defendant Tufo did not further investigate.\n\nOn January 10, 2000, the injured individual falsely testified that the Plaintiff had shot him due to gang related activity. The injured individual testified he was wearing a blue jersey, which allegedly marked him as a member of a rival gang, at the time of the shooting. However, evidence showed that three separate detectives, including Defendant Detective Ronald Barcus, identified the shirt as black and red. Nonetheless, as lead detective, Defendant Tufo still coerced the injured individual to testify that he was wearing a blue jersey on the day of the shooting. The sole basis on which the Plaintiff was convicted was the injured individual's testimony. \n\nIn December 2002, the named perpetrator issued a sworn confession that he, not the Plaintiff, had shot the individual. The Plaintiff then filed to vacate his conviction but the Trial Court rejected the named perpetrator's testimony and denied the Plaintiff's motion. The Trial Court rejected Plaintiff's motion on grounds that this sole testimony was not compelling enough.\n\nIn 2018, 14 years later, the injured individual came forward with a sworn recantation of his trial testimony where he confessed to lying about identifying Plaintiff as the shooter. The testimony matched the confession of the named perpetrator. \n\nOn June 16, 2020, the Trial Court vacated Plaintiff's conviction, dismissed the indictment, and closed and sealed the case. Plaintiff was wrongly imprisoned for a total of 20 years.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.469413/gov.uscourts.nyed.469413.1.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60384921/deberry-v-city-of-new-york/"}],"id":"FMK6","url":"https://www.50-a.org/officer/FMK6"}