A JURY in the trial of a man accused of a supermarket car-park murder say the case against him is strong, coherent and circumstantial.

Kevin 'Gerbil' Carroll was gunned down as he sat in a car outside Asda in Robroyston, Glasgow, on January 13 2010.

William Paterson is on trial at the High Court in Glasgow accused of the murder and a number of firearms charges. He has denied the charges and said he was at his girlfriend's in Cumbernauld. Mr Paterson, 35, has incriminated a number of others.

Summing up for the prosecution, advocate depute Iain McSporran said the jury should consider Mr Paterson's DNA was found on the handle of a bag that contained one of the murder weapons.

Mr McSporran told jurors that the DNA of Paterson's "associate" Ross Monaghan, who was cleared of the murder in 2012, was found on the handle of the other gun.

He said that a phone believed to be Paterson's was "used for the purpose of planning and executing criminality".

Defence lawyer Des Finnieston suggested the Crown proposition was "extraordinary" and "far from compelling".

Mr McSporran said that the jury could not consider the fact that Mr Monaghan had previously been acquitted of murder because they know nothing of the previous trial.

He said that the DNA of Mr Monaghan, described as an "associate" of Mr Paterson was found on the handle of one of the guns.

The prosecutor said: "What do we find on the handle of the carrier bag containing the other gun? - unchallenged and undisputed DNA of William Paterson."

The court was told that "the fact 10 days after the shooting with the police investigation in full flow" Mr Paterson left Scotland for Spain.

Mr McSporran discussed telephone evidence suggesting a mobile phone attributed to Mr Paterson ending in 1411, by police, was near the scene of Asda at the time of the shooting.

He said told the court the phone tells the story "just as clearly as if we could see it happening ourselves."

The court had heard about another phone was accepted as being Mr Paterson's. Mr McSporran suggested both phones belonged to the murder accused.

The court heard that both phones were were active within five minutes of each other and on 87 different occasions throughout January 2010, never contacted one another and were always in the same area.

The trial continues.