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.”
Source/Full Story: Deseret News
Technorati Tags: Warren Jeffs, polygyny