Warren Jeffs isn't exactly a likeable guy (yes, that's an understatement), but the notion that he became an accomplice to rape by orchestrating the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her cousin stands on questionable legal footing.

University of Utah law associate professor Daniel Medwed said he was "mildly surprised" at the verdict. He said he thought the facts of the case were not a perfect fit for the charges, and that lesser charges - possibly solemnizing an illegal marriage - might have been more appropriate. "Feeling he had done something wrong is a little bit of a stretch to saying he was an accomplice to rape," Medwed said.

The jury in Jeff's case was nonetheless convinced, finding him guilty yesterday. Whether the conviction will withstand an appeal is an interesting question.

Another appellate issue may be lurking in this bit of news:

The jurors, who began their deliberations on Friday after a week of testimony, announced in a note on Monday that they were deadlocked on one of two charges. The judge, James L. Shumate, pressed them to continue, and then early on Tuesday, for reasons the court did not explain, an alternate juror was substituted for one of the original panel members. A unanimous verdict came a few hours later.

All we know at this point is the court's official explanation: "there was an event with a juror."