The jury hearing the murder trial of Kevin Warner should never have heard “extremely prejudicial” evidence about gangs, his defence lawyer alleged.Elizabeth Christopher made the complaint as she launched an appeal yesterday against Warner’s conviction for murdering Dekimo ‘Purple’ Martin.Warner, 22, was convicted by the unanimous decision of a jury and jailed for a minimum of 35 years for shooting Mr Martin in the back at the victim’s home.Witnesses told Warner’s trial last year he had been a close family friend of the 24-year-old victim and was the last person seen talking to him before he was shot on the night of May 28 2010.No motive for the killing has ever been given, and Warner continues to maintain his innocence.Launching the appeal, Ms Christopher alleged: “The conviction of the appellant is completely unsafe.”She told the Court of Appeal that photographs and testimony from gang expert Sergeant Alex Rollin should not have been put before the jury. Sgt Rollin named Warner as an associate of the White Hill Crew and his brother, Kavon Hart, as a member of the Money Over Bitches (MOB) gang.Recapping on the evidence of Sgt Rollin, appeal judge Sir Anthony Evans noted yesterday: “It’s all quite prejudicial stuff, that.”According to Ms Christopher, the White Hill Crew “is not a gang known for shooting people” like the MOB is, and Warner was not in the MOB.She also complained about photographs downloaded from Mr Hart’s phone, which showed him with a young child who was holding a gun. Another showed a neck chain with the MOB acronym. A third showed Mr Hart making a gang sign with his hands.“It’s our submission that the evidence was highly prejudicial,” said Ms Christopher.Warner admitted during the trial that his brother kept a gun at his house. However, according to Ms Christopher, the jury heard no evidence that Warner borrowed or used that gun.She said of the picture: “It’s a photograph of someone having a child hold a gun. It’s very prejudicial, indeed it beggars belief. It’s absolutely ridiculous and it demonstrates things about inculcating people into gangs. It’s extremely prejudicial”.She added: “It doesn’t advance the Crown’s case. It’s something to which we all have a knee-jerk reaction. Rightfully so, but it doesn’t have a place in this case, we say.”Ms Christopher also outlined several other grounds for the appeal. She suggested that trial judge Carlisle Greaves delivered flawed directions to the jury on the issue of identification which was “the key issue for the jury”.She alleged that the judge failed, when summing up the case, to fully highlight weaknesses in the evidence given by eyewitness Danielle Martin, the victim’s sister.The trial heard Mr Martin and Warner both attended a barbecue at the victim’s family home on the night of his death. Around 1am, when most people had gone to bed, the two men were heard talking alone outside. Then, gunshots rang out.Ms Martin told the trial she rushed outside and saw a man fitting Warner’s appearance running down the road. She then heard her brother gasping and moaning in the darkness.According to Ms Christopher, the judge did not highlight to the jury fully enough that it was dark when Ms Martin saw the man, that he was 75 feet away and she had just woken up from sleep.Ms Christopher also argued that the judge wrongly gave the jury the impression there was gun shot residue evidence showing Warner must have fired a gun.The appeal, which is set to be contested by prosecutors Carrington Mahoney and Maria Sofianos, is set to continue today. The other judges hearing the case, besides Sir Robin Auld are president of the Court of Appeal Edward Zacca and Sir Austin Ward.