The suspect admitted stabbing Gabriel Arrazola Perez but gave changing accounts before alleging an unwanted sexual advance.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A murder prosecution against Omar Andres Ramos Castro is expected to turn on whether evidence supports his claim that he acted in self-defense when he repeatedly stabbed barbershop owner Gabriel Arrazola Perez near railroad tracks in May.
Ramos Castro, 24, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Arrazola Perez, 44. He told investigators that an unwanted sexual advance caused him to become filled with rage and use a pocketknife, according to a criminal complaint. Yet police said Ramos Castro first denied seeing Arrazola Perez that day, then admitted only a brief meeting before acknowledging the stabbing. The medical examiner found wounds across several parts of the victim’s body as well as defensive injuries. Those competing accounts and findings could produce major disputes over intent, credibility and lawful use of force.
A claim of self-defense does not end a homicide case. Prosecutors may seek to show that a defendant did not face an immediate threat, had another way to avoid the conflict or used force far beyond what the situation required. The defense may argue that the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary, even if later evidence presents an incomplete or different picture. Ramos Castro’s exact legal strategy has not been publicly established, and an admission described in a complaint is not the same as testimony under oath. He also may challenge whether his interview was properly conducted, whether his statements were voluntary and whether detectives accurately interpreted his answers through a Spanish-language translator.
The physical evidence will likely receive close attention. According to the complaint, Arrazola Perez suffered stab wounds to his back, neck, chest and abdomen. Three vertebrae in his neck and back were fractured. One abdominal wound caused part of his large bowel to protrude, and investigators described additional injuries as defensive wounds. The number of wounds was not stated in the public reports reviewed for the case, and the complete autopsy has not been released. Ramos Castro told police he could not remember how many times he stabbed Arrazola Perez because he was overwhelmed by anger. Prosecutors may argue that the locations and severity of the wounds demonstrate intent to kill or continued violence after any immediate danger had passed. The defense may seek expert testimony offering another interpretation.
Ramos Castro’s language during the interview could matter as much as the forensic findings. He said he became “filled with rage” after Arrazola Perez allegedly reached toward his crotch despite objections. That description differs from a statement focused solely on fear. Prosecutors could cite anger as evidence of a retaliatory attack, while defense attorneys could argue that the full interview provides context missing from selected phrases in the complaint. No recording or transcript of the entire questioning has been made public. Courts often decide before trial which statements jurors may hear, whether portions should be excluded and whether officers continued questioning after a suspect invoked any constitutional right.
The allegation also raises the prospect of arguments about prejudice. Jennifer Pradt, a criminal defense attorney who is not involved in the prosecution, told CBS Minnesota that a defense based on an alleged same-sex advance could count on the homophobia of jurors. She predicted significant pretrial motions and hearings. Her comments reflected a concern that jurors might treat a victim’s perceived sexual orientation as a reason to excuse violence. The defense has not publicly adopted that framing, and court rules would govern what lawyers may argue. A close friend of Arrazola Perez said the accusation that he touched Ramos Castro inappropriately made no sense and was completely outside the character of the man she knew.
Character testimony, however, is subject to legal limits. A friend’s view of Arrazola Perez may provide important personal context but does not by itself prove what happened during a private encounter. Likewise, Ramos Castro’s accusation does not become true because he made it during an interview. Attorneys may debate whether evidence of either man’s prior conduct is relevant, whether it risks unfair prejudice and whether it addresses a fact actually in dispute. The judge could be asked to prevent arguments that rely on stereotypes rather than evidence. Those rulings may shape the trial before jurors hear the first witness.
The chronology gives prosecutors evidence independent of the disputed account. Arrazola Perez attended a brewery gathering on May 24 and left at about 4 p.m., telling relatives he would return. His phone records showed repeated calls to a number police linked to Ramos Castro. One return call came at 6:34 p.m. Investigators said the person using that number sent Arrazola Perez a location pin through WhatsApp. The pin pointed toward an area close to railroad tracks off Case Avenue East and Birmingham Street, where surveillance video showed Arrazola Perez and another man at about 7:03 p.m. Location information placed the other phone near the scene around the time of the killing, according to the complaint.
Video later showed Arrazola Perez’s body in the railroad corridor between 8:55 p.m. and 11:12 p.m., after it had not appeared in earlier footage. The publicly described evidence does not show whether a camera captured the attack. It does, however, establish a period during which investigators believe the killing occurred. Footage from a nearby Speedway showed a man wearing clothing similar to that of the person seen with Arrazola Perez. Detectives traced that person to Ramos Castro’s apartment. The defense may examine the quality of those images, the certainty of the identification, gaps between cameras and the accuracy of timestamps. Prosecutors may combine the recordings with phone data and Ramos Castro’s admission to argue that the identification does not depend on any single piece of evidence.
The crime scene was discovered on May 25 by a man walking an English bulldog near the 1400 block of Case Avenue. The dog pulled toward the body, and the man called 911 at about 11 a.m. He said the body had not been there the previous day. Police found identification documents belonging to Arrazola Perez, while his Subaru Crosstrek was parked about half a mile away. Officers did not immediately find his phone. A police dog located it the next day, and investigators said fingerprints recovered from the device did not match Arrazola Perez. Authorities have not publicly identified whose prints they were or said whether they matched Ramos Castro.
When police arrested Ramos Castro on June 4, his early statements put distance between himself and the victim. He said he had met Arrazola Perez once after being offered a job clearing construction material. He denied a friendship or relationship. He later acknowledged receiving invitations to eat or smoke marijuana but denied seeing Arrazola Perez on May 24. After investigators presented evidence placing him near the tracks, Ramos Castro said he had been with Arrazola Perez for about 10 minutes and that other people were present. He claimed he left while Arrazola Perez remained there. The complaint said he admitted the stabbing only after further questioning.
Changing statements can be used by prosecutors to suggest consciousness of guilt, but the defense may offer other explanations. A suspect may be frightened, confused, distrustful of police or struggling through translation. Lawyers may examine how questions were phrased, whether detectives disclosed or overstated evidence and whether Ramos Castro understood his rights. Police said he was advised of those rights before the interview. The prosecution may argue that his shifting account followed the gradual disclosure of evidence and ended with details that only a participant would know. The defense may contend that the questioning created an unreliable narrative or that an admission to stabbing does not resolve whether the force was legally justified.
Prosecutors charged Ramos Castro with second-degree murder rather than a lesser homicide offense. Under the charge described publicly, the state alleges an intentional killing without premeditation. Premeditation would require proof that the decision to kill was considered beforehand, even briefly, while the filed charge does not require that additional element. Intent can be inferred from conduct, the weapon used, the number and placement of wounds, statements and events before or after a death. The defense could seek a dismissal, request a lesser-included offense instruction or ask jurors for an acquittal based on self-defense. The available public record does not show which motions have been filed.
Ramos Castro was ordered held on $2.5 million bond in the Ramsey County Jail. If convicted as charged, he could face up to 40 years in prison, though a final sentence would depend on state guidelines and judicial decisions. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement later said it placed a detainer on him and alleged that he entered the United States illegally from El Salvador in 2023. That federal action does not prove the murder allegation and should not determine whether he acted in self-defense. A judge may need to ensure that immigration information does not improperly influence jurors if it has no bearing on the charged conduct.
Arrazola Perez’s family said he was their safe place, protector and provider. He owned Barbers on Bryant in Minneapolis and became a well-known figure among customers and friends. Their grief will remain part of the case’s human setting, but the court’s task will be narrower: determine what happened beside the tracks and whether the state can disprove any legally valid claim of self-defense. That answer will depend on admissible evidence rather than assumptions about either man.
The next major milestones are expected to include evidence disclosure, pretrial motions and judicial rulings defining how the disputed encounter may be presented at trial. As of July 10, Ramos Castro remained jailed and presumed innocent.
Author note: Last updated July 10, 2026.