FARGO - A lawyer for the man accused of kidnapping University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin says earlier convictions for attempted kidnapping and sex crimes do not qualify him for the death penalty.

Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., 52, of Crookston, Minn., has been charged in federal court with kidnapping resulting in the death of Sjodin, 22, who disappeared from a Grand Forks shopping mall in November 2003. Rodriguez has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty if Rodriguez is convicted. Rodriguez's lawyers have asked U.S District Judge Ralph Erickson to bar capital punishment in the case.

Defense attorney Richard Ney argued Friday that Rodriguez's 1980 conviction in the attempted kidnapping and stabbing of a Crookston woman was tainted. Ney said the woman did not identify Rodriguez until after she was hypnotized.

"The conviction was based on evidence that should not have been allowed," Ney said.

U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley said that argument should be saved for a sentencing hearing. He said the woman looked into Rodriguez's eyes "for 1 minute" and gave a detailed description to police.

"For heaven's sake, he attacked (the woman) and was convicted of that crime," Wrigley said, pointing to Rodriguez.

Wrigley and Ney got into a skirmish when Wrigley accused Ney, who is known for handling death penalty cases, of taking the law out of context. Wrigley told Erickson that factor should be considered "no matter how many death penalty cases he's done."

Ney said Wrigley should "argue the law and not personalities." And Erickson warned both attorneys that he would not put up with personal attacks because it would risk a mistrial.

"Try it once; try it right," Erickson said.

Rodriguez first ran afoul of the law in 1974, pleading guilty in separate cases to attempted rape and aggravated rape. Ney said those convictions should not be used against Rodriguez in the death penalty argument because the crimes were not considered to have caused "serious bodily harm."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Norman Anderson said that definition was based on prosecutors' understanding of the law 30 years ago. "We don't need to show there was physical harm," he said.