Disabled man could not consent to sex in professor's abuse case, expert says

Dr. Paul Fulford testified about his evaluations of the alleged victim on Thursday at Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield's trial

NEWARK -- At the trial of Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield on charges of sexually assaulting a disabled man, a psychologist said on Thursday the alleged victim could not consent to sexual activity.

Dr. Paul Fulford said he reached that conclusion after a 2011 evaluation in which the man, known as D.J., did not communicate with him. Fulford conducted the examination at the request of Essex County prosecutors.

"My final opinion, essentially the bottom line, was that he was not competent to give consent to sexual activity," Fulford testified. "It's a question of does he have the understanding to consent to it."

Whether D.J. consented to the sexual acts is one of the main issues in Stubblefield's trial on two counts of aggravated sexual assault. She is accused of abusing the now-34-year-old man in her Newark office in 2011.

Stubblefield, 45, of West Orange, has claimed she and D.J. had fallen in love and that he consented to the sexual activity through a controversial technique, known as "facilitated communication."

Advocates claim that method allows a disabled person to communicate by typing on a keyboard while a facilitator provides physical support. Critics argue the technique is ineffective and that studies have shown the facilitators are controlling the users' movements.

Several scientific organizations have declared the method is invalid.

For Stubblefield's trial, Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare has barred expert testimony on facilitated communication, because she determined it is "not a recognized science." The judge also has warned Stubblefield to not take on an expert's perspective in her testimony about the technique.

Stubblefield is expected to testify she believed the method was a valid means of communication in response to the state's allegations that she knew or should have known D.J. was unable to consent.

Stubblefield met D.J. in 2009 through his brother, then a Rutgers student, who was taking a course of Stubblefield's, which included a class involving the topic of facilitated communication, the brother has testified. After that class, the brother said he asked Stubblefield for more information about the method to see if it might help D.J.

Stubblefield spent about two years working with D.J. before revealing their sexual relationship to his mother and his brother on May 2011.

D.J., who suffers from cerebral palsy and other ailments, wears diapers and requires assistance with walking, bathing, dressing and eating, his mother has testified. Other than making noises, D.J. does not speak, his brother said.

Fulford initially evaluated D.J. in 2001 as part of the process in which the man's mother and brother were seeking to become his legal guardians.

At that time, Fulford said he determined D.J. was in need of a guardianship after finding he had difficulty with understanding the questions Fulford asked him. Fulford said he found D.J. was intellectually deficient.

After prosecutors in 2011 asked Fulford to evaluate D.J.'s ability to consent, Fulford said the man provided "almost no significant responses" during the examination.

"There were sounds, but not interpretable by me," said Fulford, adding that "there was no communicating or attempt to communicate."

But on cross-examination, Stubblefield's attorney, James Patton, questioned Fulford about whether he had conducted any tests during the 2011 evaluation. Fulford said he attempted to test D.J., but "no tests were able to be performed."

"I asked him questions," Fulford said. "I got no responses."

During a discussion on Fulford's 2001 evaluation, Patton also questioned if he tested whether D.J.'s inability to answer questions was the result of physical or mental problems.

But Fulford said his role in that evaluation was to assess D.J.'s mental condition, not his physical condition.

"I have no right by law to make a conclusion in a report that goes to the state that the problem is really physical," Fulford said.

Since Fulford was unable in that evaluation to conclude D.J.'s problem was a physical one, Patton questioned whether Fulford "just selected the other option and concluded it was mental."

Fulford pointed to the purpose of the examination and said he "was there to assess the mental, not to assess the physical."

Bill Wichert may be reached at bwichert@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @BillWichertNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.