A female juror said the panel didn't believe Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield's claim that she communicated with the disabled man through "facilitated communication"
NEWARK -- Accused of sexually assaulting a disabled man, known as D.J., who cannot speak beyond making noises, Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield had claimed she communicated with him through a controversial typing method.
But one of the jurors who convicted Stubblefield on Friday said the panel didn't buy that argument.
"Especially the communications she was supposedly having with (D.J.) and that he was doing all of this talking, we didn't believe it," the juror said.
In an interview with NJ Advance Media after the verdict was handed down, the female juror explained why the jury found Stubblefield, 45, of West Orange, guilty of two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault for abusing the 34-year-old D.J. in her Newark office in 2011.
Soon after the panel began its deliberations on Thursday, the group was convinced of Stubblefield's guilt, according to the juror, who declined to provide her name.
The juror said "you don't want to see someone go to jail," but added that "once we started talking about it, everybody kind of agreed that it was wrong."
After less than two hours of deliberations, the panel, however, "wanted to give it a little more time," and decided to continue their deliberations on Friday morning, the juror said.
But after deliberating for about 45 minutes on Friday, the juror said the panel remained certain and notified the judge that it had reached a decision.
"We still talked about it more, but there was no change," the juror said.
MORE: Professor found guilty of sexually assaulting disabled man
After the verdict was delivered, Superior Court Siobhan Teare revoked Stubblefield's bail and remanded her to the Essex County jail. Her sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 9.
In a hearing a few hours later, Stubblefield's attorney, James Patton, reiterated his argument that she be released from custody. Patton suggested Stubblefield be placed on 24-hour house arrest with electronic monitoring.
Patton argued Stubblefield is not a danger to the community or a risk of flight. He stressed that Stubblefield needed to make arrangements for how her 15-year-old daughter would be cared for after her sentencing. The daughter suffers from psychological issues, Patton said.
"What needs to be done is there needs to be a transition to a new caregiver situation and I think it's important that Dr. Stubblefield participate in that transition as she's most familiar with the symptoms and the problems and the issues that the daughter faces," Patton said.
But Teare said electronic monitoring was not an option in the Superior Court system and said she had never heard of house arrest being permitted either.
The judge said she felt sorry about the circumstances involving Stubblefield's daughter, but said it seems "irresponsible" for Stubblefield to not have made preparations for her daughter's care, knowing that a conviction was possible.
Teare said there is no entitlement to bail after a conviction and that Stubblefield must be treated the same as other defendants convicted of first-degree crimes.
"It's a matter of dealing with reality and that was always a possibility," the judge said, referring to the guilty verdict. "It's not easy for me, but that's just the way it is."
Over the course of the roughly three-week trial, prosecutors presented testimony from psychologists who had evaluated D.J. and determined that he is mentally defective and cannot consent to sexual activity.
D.J., who suffers from cerebral palsy, wears diapers and requires assistance with walking, bathing, dressing and eating, his family members said.
Stubblefield claimed D.J. is not intellectually impaired and said he gave his consent through the technique known as "facilitated communication."
With that method, Stubblefield said she provided physical support while D.J. typed messages on a keyboard. Critics have said the method is ineffective in light of studies showing facilitators influencing the users' messages.
Stubblefield met D.J. in 2009 through his brother, then a Rutgers student, who 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.
While working with D.J. through the technique over about two years, Stubblefield said they 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.
But the juror said she believed the state's experts about D.J.'s mental defectiveness and did not accept Stubblefield's claims about facilitated communication.
The juror said it appeared Stubblefield's plan was "to get status or to say...'Look, what I've done'" for D.J. in helping him to communicate.
"In one sense, maybe she did fall in love with him, but it was just too much manipulation," the juror said.
While on the witness stand, Stubblefield was "very arrogant," according to the juror. The juror specifically criticized Stubblefield's claims about her office being a private space and that the sexual acts there were not the university's business.
"I thought that was ridiculous," the juror said.
The juror also indicated that seeing D.J. in the courtroom made an impact on her. In his only appearance during the trial, D.J.'s mother escorted him into the courtroom on the first day and introduced him to the jury.
"I couldn't understand why she did it when I did see him," the juror said, referring to Stubblefield. "I was like...'You're going to leave your husband and your kids for someone like this?'"
Bill Wichert may be reached at bwichert@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @BillWichertNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.