As the jury prepares to deliberate in the Liberty Street murder case, attorneys for the prosecution and the defense battled over evidence presented over the course of the trial.

Attorneys presented closing arguments to the jury this week in the murder trial centered on the deaths of two Santa Barbara teenagers in a 2021 shooting.

Prosecutors allege that the murders were the result of a gang-related shooting by a Carpinteria-based Carpas street gang targeting the Eastside Santa Barbara gang.

Angel Eduardo Varela, 30, and Oscar Martin Trujillo-Gutierrez, 30, are accused of murder in the deaths of 17-year-old Angel Castillo and 18-year-old Omar Montiel-Hernandez.

Both died from a gunshot wound to the back. Two other people were also shot in the attack but survived their wounds, police said.

Investigators allege that the perpetrators planned the shooting and then drove from Carpinteria to Santa Barbara to carry it out.

In his closing arguments, Senior Deputy District Attorney Tate McCallister told the jury that the shooting was done out of a “perverse idea of respect” held by the gangs.

“They did it to eliminate rivals and make the Eastside Gang respect them,” McCallister told the jury.

Varela is accused of shooting the gun, a 9mm Glock with an extended magazine, that injured the four men on the night of Jan. 3, 2021. Varela faces charges of murder in the first degree and attempted murder.

Trujillo-Gutierrez also is accused of murder in the first degree and aiding and abetting in the crime.

Prosecutors presented evidence that the defendants planned the attack before the shooting.

Santa Barbara Police Department detectives said they traced the phones of Varela, Trujillo-Gutierrez and another man allegedly involved, Emilio Perez, from Carpinteria to the area of Liberty Street on the day of the shooting.

In court testimony, investigators said that Varela and Trujillo-Gutierrez exited Varela’s Jeep while Perez drove away at the time of the shooting. Varela is accused of firing four shots that killed Castillo and Montiel-Hernandez and wounded the two other men.

Varela and Trujillo-Gutierrez allegedly fled on foot and met up with the Jeep at a different location before heading back to Carpinteria.

“That is overwhelming evidence of a pre-existing plan,” McCallister said in closing arguments.

Prosecutors also presented evidence that a 9mm gun recovered during the investigation is the same gun used in the shooting. Police recovered the gun after Varela gave it to an acquaintance after the shooting, and it was sold to a third party, according to trial testimony.

Photos recovered from phones of Varela and his girlfriend show him holding a gun of the same model and color as the suspected murder weapon, according to court testimony. It also had a similar extended magazine and threaded barrel, witnesses said.

A ballistics expert for the prosecution testified that the casings from the crime scene matched the casing fired during testing of the recovered gun.

McCallister also shared a video recovered from home security cameras showing two men that he alleged were the defendants leaving the scene of the shooting. The video also showed a Jeep matching the model owned by Varela around Liberty Street before the shooting and after.

Other evidence presented during the trial included text messages between Varela and his girlfriend that McCallister claimed alluded to the shooting and told potential witnesses to keep quiet.

Defense Questions Phone Tracking, Ballistics Evidence

Varela’s attorney, Jose Romero of Romero & Associates, challenged the prosecution’s version of events, saying the case was tied together by shoelaces.

“(It’s like) toddlers learning to tie their shoes for the first time,” Romero told the jury.

During his argument, Romero pointed out that none of the witnesses could place Varela or Trujillo-Gutierrez at the scene on the night of the shooting.

Trujillo-Gutierrez is represented by Mauro Quintero of Kay & Quintero Law.

Romero worked to undermine evidence presented by the prosecution, starting with the cellphone tracking data, which he called junk science.

The defense attorney questioned images shared by the prosecutor showing the location of the cellphones on the night of the shooting, saying the areas of the phone’s range were too large to tell where the men were.

Romero added that it is harder to pinpoint using such a large area in a small city like Santa Barbara. Romero also criticized the testimony of District Attorney’s Office investigator Megan Harrison, who he said does not have the experience with cellphone technology to be able to testify on the accuracy of the data.

Romero also criticized the field of ballistics used to identify the gun in question, saying the practice of ballistics did not meet the objective standards of other scientific fields.

The jury will begin deliberations after attorneys finish their closing arguments.

The trial started on Dec. 4 in Santa Barbara County Superior Court.