Attorneys presented their closing statements in the trial of Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield, who is charged with sexually assaulting a disabled man
NEWARK -- In closing statements on Thursday at Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield's trial on charges of sexually assaulting a disabled man, her attorney summed up the case in one word - weird.
With the evidence presented at the trial, attorney James Patton said it was weird for such a large amount of information about a couple's relationship to be exposed for public view in a courtroom.
But Patton argued there was nothing weird about the relationship itself. Stubblefield and the man, known as D.J., had fallen in love and were in a consensual romance, Patton said.
"There's nothing weird about this relationship," Patton told the jurors, later adding that "the evidence in this case is overwhelming that this was a consensual, mutual, loving relationship."
Essex County Assistant Prosecutor Eric Plant, however, argued the evidence shows Stubblefield, 45, of West Orange, sexually assaulted the 34-year-old D.J. in her Newark office in 2011.
D.J., who suffers from cerebral palsy, does not speak beyond making noises, and experts have found he has intellectual disabilities and cannot consent to sexual activity, according to Plant. Due to his cognitive impairments, D.J.'s mother and brother have been designated as his legal guardians, Plant said.
Plant attacked Stubblefield's credibility, saying she had been dishonest with D.J.'s family, her colleagues and her then-husband about the nature of her relationship with D.J. Plant told jurors Stubblefield should have known better before abusing D.J., and said whether she loved him is irrelevant to the case.
"She should know better," said Plant, repeating a phrase he used frequently throughout his closing statement. "It's ridiculous and she should know better."
Within that phrase lies one of the elements to be considered by jurors when they resume deliberations on Friday. The jury deliberated for less than two hours on Thursday.
In order to convict Stubblefield on the two counts of aggravated sexual assault she is facing, prosecutors must prove D.J. was mentally defective or physically helpless to the point where he could not consent, and that Stubblefield knew or should have known he suffered from those conditions.
RELATED: Prosecutors challenge controversial technique in professor's sex assault trial
Sorting through those issues will largely depend on how the jury evaluates a controversial technique known as "facilitated communication," which Stubblefield claims to have used to communicate with D.J.
Advocates of the method claim facilitators provide physical support to assist users with typing on a keyboard. But critics have said the method is ineffective in light of studies showing facilitators influencing the users' messages.
Stubblefield has claimed D.J. is not intellectually impaired and that he was able to consent through facilitated communication.
Stubblefield worked with D.J. through that technique for roughly two years after she was first introduced to him in 2009 through his brother.
D.J.'s brother, then a Rutgers student, was taking a course of Stubblefield's during which the professor showed a video about the method. The brother later asked her for more information about the method to see if it might help D.J.
Over the following two years, Stubblefield said D.J. communicated through the typing method. She said he wrote papers that were presented at conferences and wrote essays for a literature class he took at Rutgers.
Stubblefield said she and D.J. fell in love and ultimately disclosed their sexual relationship to his mother and brother in May 2011.
After the sexual assault allegations surfaced, Rutgers placed Stubblefield on administrative leave without pay and stripped her of the title of chairwoman of the philosophy department.
Anna Stubblefield, 45, a Rutgers-Newark professor from West Orange, who is facing two counts of aggravated sexual assault for allegedly abusing a severely mentally disabled man in 2011 testifies in court. The trial is being heard before Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare at the Essex County Courthouse in Newark. 9/23/15 (Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com) In his closing statement, Patton pointed to various examples that he claimed shows D.J. was the author of the messages he typed while Stubblefield was using facilitated communication with him.
Patton noted how D.J. sometimes made mistakes in his typing and that he conveyed information Stubblefield was unaware of.
In one instance after the sexual relationship was disclosed, Stubblefield was facilitating D.J. and he correctly answered questions posed by his brother about a relative, but Stubblefield had no idea what the correct answers were, according to Patton.
Those answers show the communication between Stubblefield and D.J. was "valid communication," Patton said.
"All of the evidence demonstrates that this was a mutually, loving relationship, that they were able to converse and that they made conscious decisions before going ahead," Patton said.
Patton also argued that even if jurors believe D.J. was mentally defective or physically helpless to the point where he could not consent, they could not find Stubblefield should have known about those conditions.
To support that argument, Patton noted how a state expert testified facilitators may be unaware they're moving users' hands as part of the dynamic also seen in the use of the "Ouija board," the classic board game supposedly used to connect players to the spirit world.
MORE: Professor rejects claim she 'raped' disabled man
But Plant dismissed Patton's examples of the technique working with D.J. He challenged the claim that Stubblefield was unaware of the answers regarding D.J.'s relative.
Plant stressed how every methodologically sound study of facilitated communication have determined it does not work. He claimed Stubblefield lied in her testimony about studies involving the method.
"Just because the facilitated communication community is over in the corner shouting does not mean that the issue is not settled," Plant told the jurors. "She should have known better. That's not how law-abiding citizens act."
Plant repeatedly noted how Stubblefield was the only witness to claim D.J. is not mentally defective and can consent to sexual activity, but he claimed she does not have the expertise to reach such a conclusion.
"She doesn't have the knowledge. She doesn't have the degrees. She doesn't have the experience, and she doesn't have the legal right to tell you that," Plant told the jurors.
Meanwhile, two psychologists evaluated D.J. and completed a total of three reports that found D.J. is mentally defective, according to Plant. Plant highlighted those findings as well as an evaluation by a speech pathologist, who determined D.J. is intellectually impaired. Those three experts testified on behalf of the state.
But Patton argued the psychologists did not make an effort to determine whether D.J.'s communication problems were physical or cognitive in nature. Patton said the examinations required verbal responses when D.J. cannot speak and required him to write down answers when he cannot hold a pencil.
Patton also challenged the credibility of D.J.'s brother over whether there were abrasions on D.J.'s back, and noted how D.J.'s family is suing Stubblefield.
D.J.'s brother testified he saw those injuries, but Patton said the brother did not mention those allegations before the trial in speaking with law enforcement or during prior legal proceedings.
"He has a million-dollar lawsuit," said Patton, referring to D.J.'s brother.
Plant said Patton's allegations that D.J.'s mother and brother were trying to deceive the jury were "preposterous." He pointed out how they initially did not contact the police or Rutgers, and how they just wanted Stubblefield to stay away from them after learning about the sexual relationship.
"Are those the actions of money-hungry people?" Plant asked.
Bill Wichert may be reached at bwichert@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @BillWichertNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.