Attorneys for Warren Jeffs argued Tuesday that the Fundamentalist LDS Church leader was convicted of being an accomplice to rape by "mixing and matching" different laws.

Prosecutors, however, described Jeffs as a "mastermind" who controlled every aspect of life in the FLDS community that he leads.

The contrasting depictions were presented before the Utah Supreme Court, where Jeffs' attorneys are appealing his 2007 conviction.

Jeffs is currently serving two sentences of five years to life in prison on a two-count conviction of accomplice to rape stemming from a "spiritual marriage" he presided over between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin. This appeal is the latest effort to overturn the jury's finding that Jeffs was an accomplice based on advice he gave to the girl, Elissa Wall, who is now an adult, amid her protestations to the marriage.

Wall said she had asked for the marriage to be postponed until she was older, that she be married to someone besides her cousin and, later, that she be released from the marriage.

Wall was present at the hearing Tuesday, as were male members of the FLDS Church, who filled more than two rows in the court chambers. But when they were faced with the defected member of their faith whose story led to their leader's imprisonment, they barely blinked.

Jeffs' defense attorney Walter Bugden Jr. told the justices that a charge of illegal marriage against Jeffs would have been more appropriate than an accomplice to rape charge because Jeffs never intended for the pair to engage in non-consensual sexual intercourse.

He asked the justices to return to the definitions of the law, arguing that while Jeffs was in a position of special trust, he neither committed a rape nor encouraged Wall's cousin and husband Allen Steed to do so.

Bugden said that if Steed had gone to Jeffs and told them about their issues and Jeffs had told him to force himself upon his bride, then Jeffs would be guilty, but advising Wall to give herself to her husband "mind, body and soul and obey without question" does not equal encouraging her to engage in non-consensual sex.

He said the jury should have been clearly advised at the time of trial that Jeffs would need to be found guilty of "recklessly encouraging" the rape for the conviction to stand. Instead, Bugden said, his client was convicted because he is seen as an "unpopular religious leader."