In Warren Jeffs' latest attempt to get out of an accomplice to rape conviction, attorneys will argue the case before the Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday.

This most recent appeal from the controversial leader of the Fundamental LDS Church is just the latest in an ongoing campaign to reverse the 2007 conviction that has included motions to dismiss the case, demands for retrial and attempted plea deals.

Jeffs was sentenced in November 2007 on two counts of accomplice to rape for presiding over the spiritual marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin and for counseling the woman to give herself "mind, body and soul and obey without question," court documents state. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of five-years-to-life in prison. He is currently being held in the Mohave County Jail in Arizona, where he faces other charges.

The girl in the marriage, Elissa Wall, who is now an adult, testified in court that she had expressed concerns before the union, stating that she felt she was too young for marriage and that she wished to marry someone other than her cousin. She said Jeffs and other family members told her before her marriage, and after, to obey the prophet and her husband.

Wall said she also asked Jeffs to "release" her from the marriage at one point, which is when he told her to "obey without question." Despite this, court documents also state that it is understood in the FLDS community that women are not to be forced sexually and are not meant to obey husbands that have not "behaved righteously."

The basis of this appeal is that Jeffs was only acting in his capacity as a spiritual leader and was not encouraging or suggesting that the couple should engage in non-consensual sex.

"This case raises important constitutional issues regarding the prosecution of a religious leader as an accomplice to rape based upon his performance of a marriage ceremony and marriage counseling he provided after the marriage," the appellant's brief states.

But prosecutors contend that "all of Elissa's words and conduct to this point told Jeffs that she did not want to touch or kiss Allen, let alone engage in sexual relations with him. Jeffs would have understood that, by objecting to the marriage, Elissa necessarily objected to everything a marital relationship entails, including sexual intercourse."

Attorneys for Jeffs are also arguing that a criminal rule was violated during the initial trial when one of the jurors had to be replaced after deliberations had begun. Prosecutors contend that they moved for a mistrial as soon as the juror was dismissed, but Jeffs' defense said it was an acceptable action, leading the court to uphold the decision, as Jeffs had "invited any error."