ST. GEORGE — A judge Thursday denied a request for a new trial for Warren Jeffs, the polygamous-sect leader convicted by a Washington County jury last year of two counts of rape as an accomplice.

Fifth District Judge James Shumate made the ruling during a hearing that lasted less than an hour in a St. George courtroom. Defense attorneys said they would appeal the ruling within the next 30 days.

The legal team for Jeffs argued that its client's constitutional right to a jury trial was compromised after one juror was dismissed for cause and an alternate seated after 13 hours of deliberations had already passed.

"It is inconceivable to me that all seven jurors, if they were properly instructed by the court, would have said they could wipe that out of their minds (the hours of deliberation), and disregard every opinion they had formed," said Richard Wright, who argued the reconstituted jury was tainted by opinions expressed by the dismissed juror.

It was unclear, said Wright, whether the original jury had reached a verdict on the first count before the juror was dismissed. Court records show the jury told Shumate they were deadlocked on the second count and did not know how to proceed. The next morning, one juror informed Shumate that another juror had lied on the jury questionnaire.

"I have to think if I were allowed to cross-examine the jurors they would have said they already convicted on count one," he told Shumate, adding that decision should be considered prejudicial since the newly seated jury could not have avoided that history.

But Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap dismissed Wright's analysis, telling Shumate that the defense was seeking to get another shot at trial because the team didn't like the outcome of the first one.

"Utah law is clear. Even constitutional rights can be waived merely by failing to object," said Belnap, adding that Jeffs' defense team turned down the state's offer for a mistrial because of the dismissed juror's conduct.

"The way everything unfolded on that dramatic Tuesday morning assured the court it was doing exactly what the defense wanted," he said.

Shumate, too, wondered how Wright could overlook the fact that the defense pushed the court to allow the jury to continue its deliberations with an alternate juror.

"I will never forget the defense's impassioned plea that we replace this juror with one of the sequestered alternate jurors," said Shumate. "And Mr. Belnap's equally strident request for a mistrial. How do we get beyond the fact that Mr. Jeffs wanted this juror?"