Professor looks to overturn conviction for sex assault of disabled man

Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield is asking a judge to set aside the jury's guilty verdict and either grant her a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, court documents state

NEWARK -- Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield is asking a Superior Court judge to throw out her conviction last month on charges of sexually assaulting a disabled man.

Stubblefield has filed a motion with Judge Siobhan Teare to set aside the jury's guilty verdict and either grant her a judgment of acquittal or a new trial, court documents state. Stubblefield was convicted on Oct. 2 of two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault. The sexual acts occurred in her Newark office in 2011.

The 34-year-old victim, known as D.J., has cerebral palsy and is unable to speak beyond making noises. Psychologists have determined he is mentally incompetent and cannot consent to sexual activity.

But Stubblefield, 45, of West Orange, claimed during the trial that D.J. is not intellectually impaired and was able to communicate through a controversial typing method, known as "facilitated communication." Stubblefield said she and D.J. had fallen in love.

In a phone interview on Thursday, Stubblefield's attorney, James Patton, said the motion is based on how there was "insufficient evidence" to prove Stubblefield knew or should have known D.J. was mentally defective to the point where he could not consent. Patton declined to elaborate on that argument.

Stubblefield's sentencing was scheduled for Monday, but it has been postponed because she still has to be interviewed at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Woodbridge, a facility for persistent sex offenders, according to Patton.

That interview will lead to a psychological report that is expected to address whether Stubblefield is a compulsive sex offender, Patton said. The report will impact how she is ultimately sentenced, he said. Those reports are required for anyone convicted of a sex offense in New Jersey, he said.

Her new sentence date is Jan. 15, court records show. As a first-degree offender, Stubblefield is facing a potential state prison term of between 10 and 20 years on each count for a maximum possible sentence of 40 years.

Patton said he is planning to ask Teare to sentence Stubblefield as a second-degree offender and impose an overall prison term of five years. The potential sentence for second-degree crimes is 5 to 10 years in prison.

"We're going to be asking the judge to be as lenient as possible," said Patton, adding that Stubblefield will be appealing her conviction.

Following her conviction, Stubblefield was remanded to the Essex County Correctional Facility to await sentencing.

MORE: Professor found guilty of sexually assaulting disabled man

Stubblefield, who was previously chairwoman of the Rutgers' philosophy department, had been on administrative leave without pay before and during her trial. Her most recent salary was $110,618, according to Rutgers spokesman Greg Trevor.

But Trevor declined to address whether Stubblefield has been terminated in light of her conviction.

"Stubblefield has been on unpaid leave since November 2011. She also was banned from campus and prohibited from interacting with Rutgers students," Trevor said on Friday in an email. "The university's actions concerning Stubblefield's employment status in response to her criminal conviction are confidential personnel matters."

At the center of Stubblefield's trial was the ongoing debate over facilitated communication.

Advocates of the method claim facilitators provide physical support to assist users with typing on a keyboard. Critics have said the technique is ineffective in light of studies showing facilitators influencing the users' messages.

Stubblefield first met D.J. in 2009 through his brother, then a Rutgers student, who was taking a course of Stubblefield's. During one class, Stubblefield presented a video that dealt with facilitated communication, and the brother later asked her for more information about the method to see if it might help D.J.

Over the next two years, Stubblefield worked with D.J. through the technique. She claimed he was able to communicate through the typing method, including by writing papers that were presented at conferences and essays for a literature class 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.

During the trial, psychologists testified about how they had evaluated D.J. and determined he was cognitively impaired. Based on those expert findings, D.J.'s mother and brother have been designated as his legal guardians.

But on the witness stand during the trial, Stubblefield maintained that D.J. communicated through the technique.

"It was very clear he was the author of his words. He certainly wasn't letting me call the shots or push him around in any way," said Stubblefield, referring to D.J. "He wouldn't let me do anything that he didn't want me to do."

Stubblefield claimed that, while studies in the early 1990s determined facilitated communication was invalid, more recent studies have involved experienced users and facilitators and shown the method to be "a valid communication technique."

But Essex County Assistant Prosecutor Eric Plant, who tried the case, noted during the trial that numerous studies have shown facilitated communication does not work and that several scientific organizations have issued statements that the technique is invalid.

James Todd, a psychology professor at Eastern Michigan University, testified for the state about how every "methodologically sound" study of the technique has determined it to be an invalid means of communication.

"It's become the single most scientifically discredited intervention in all of developmental disabilities," Todd said.

RELATED: Juror explains why professor was convicted of sexually assaulting disabled man

As Stubblefield awaits sentencing, an article she wrote in 2011 about facilitated communication has come under scrutiny. In that article, Stubblefield accused those who criticized the technique of practicing "hate speech."

That article was published in an issue of a journal called Disability Studies Quarterly, which is overseen by the Board of Directors of the non-profit Society for Disability Studies. The issue also included an article allegedly written by D.J.

Board chairwoman Brenda Brueggemann said in an email on Thursday that "we have had a number of queries asking us if we would be reevaluating the articles (either one or both) and considering either 'retraction' or what the publishing industry calls an 'expression of concern.'

"In a few cases we have had not just queries but demands for retraction," Brueggemann said.

In response to those queries and demands, the board on Oct. 29 published a statement on the society's website. The statement was posted on Nov. 3 on the journal's website.

The statement reads as follows:

"The Society for Disability Studies (SDS) Board of Directors, as the final oversight and decision-making body of Disability Studies Quarterly, is aware of the many questions and debate regarding several articles published in the 2011 (31.4) issue. As an intellectual community, centered on scholarship, research, and learning, we are paying significant attention to the issues raised. We have not yet come to a decision. The case itself, regarding the authors, is not yet concluded."

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