NEWARK - Former Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield, who was accused of sexually assaulting a disabled man who was unable to speak, has had her convictions overturned after an appellate court determined she did not get a fair trial.

The court ordered that Stubblefield get another trial overseen by a new judge.

The decision was handed down Friday, overturning Stubblefield's two 2015 convictions for first-degree aggravated sexual assault. During the trial, the jury concluded that Stubblefield, then a 39-years-old philosophy professor, had sexually assaulted a then-29-year-old man known only as D.J. in 2011. The man had cerebral palsy and was unable to speak apart from making noises. Psychologists determined that D.J. couldn't consent to sex because he was mentally impaired.

During the trial, Stubblefield's lawyers maintained that she and D.J. fell in love and that she was able to communicate with him through a typing method called "facilitated communication."

Anna Stubblefield (FILE)

Following the conviction, Stubblefield was sentenced to two consecutive 12-year terms in prison and lifetime parole supervision.

Much of Stubblefield's case focused on the accuracy and reliability of the controversial typing method, "facilitated communication," which the appellate court referred to as "FC," in its decision. Before the trial, Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare, who presided over the case, ruled that there could be no expert testimony on the reliability or technique of FC because it wasn't a "recognized science."

Over the course of Stubblefield's 2015 trial, Essex County prosecutors presented three experts who all testified to D.J.'s mental incapacities. One expert, Dr. Howard Shane, who has a PhD in speech pathologies, testified that the man was not a candidate for augmentative communication devices because of his impaired mental state, the decision said.

But Stubblefield's defense attorney had an expert witness too - Dr. Rosemary Crossley, an augmentative and alternative communication specialist from Austrialia who determined that D.J. could communicate and read, according to the decision.

Crossley did an extensive, three-day videoed evaluation of D.J., which sought to determine his language and literacy skills and determine if he had, "communicative intent," the decision said. She did use FC in her assessment but nothing that she used the device for factored into her overall assessment of D.J., the defense argued.

However, her evaluation and videotape of the assessment were not brought into evidence - they were deemed unreliable because she had used FC in her assessment, the court ruled.

"The court believed Dr. Crossley's reports and examinations are inadmissible because her communication assessment is based upon an unrecognized field of science known as facilitated communication, rendering Dr. Crossley not an expert and her opinion inadmissible as a net opinion," the decision said in an overview of the facts of the case.

In the decision, the appellate court sided with Stubblefield's defense attorneys, who claimed that by preventing Crossley from presenting her full evaluation of D.J., the court was preventing the defense attorneys from presenting their full argument.

"The jury and not the court should have ultimately determined whether Dr. Crossley's evaluation was persuasive, and whether the state proved defendant knew or should have known that D.J. could not consent," the appellate court ruled.

Because they couldn't hear Crossley's full assessment, the jury was left with the impression that no expert or other person - apart from Stubblefield herself - believed that D.J. had the mental abilities to consent to sex, the decision said.

"Unfortunately, the court, in its attempt to cleanse the record of controversial FC methodology, limited the evidence to the extent that defendant was not given a fair opportunity to present her defense," the appellate court ruled.

The court went on to call the facts of the case "extraordinary," and that they called for "a liberal admission of evidence supporting defendant's defense."

The appellate court called for a new judge who would allow Crossley to testify regarding her evaluation and who would admit at least parts of her video evaluation into evidence for the jury to view.

Stubblefield's case became a national story after her 2011 charges but the interactions date back almost ten years.

She first met D.J. through his brother, who was a student in her class, in 2008.

Stubblefield, then a department chair at Rutgers University, showed a film to her class regarding FC. The film prompted D.J.'s brother to approach his professor and ask for help for his brother. D.J. could not speak words, wore a diaper and needed help in day-to-day living, according to statement of facts in the decision.

The professor began to have meetings with D.J. in 2009 - at first with his parents and then alone in her office.

"(Stubblefield) became convinced that D.J. had been misdiagnosed as having the intellectual ability of a young child," the decision said.

In May 2011, Stubblefield told D.J.'s parents that she had sexual contact with their son and that they were in love, according to the decision. She then kissed D.J. in front of his parents.

D.J.'s parents questioned whether he was capable of consent and tested him with questions only he would know, according to the decision. When they believed he answered the questions incorrectly, they told Stubblefield to stop having contact with their son and called Rutgers University with a complaint.

The university reached out to the Essex County Prosecutor's Office who, after an investigation, charged and indicted Stubblefield on two counts of aggravated sexual assault.

Stubblefield has never denied having sexual contact with D.J. but she has argued that he was mentally competent enough to consent to their interactions.

Anna Merriman may be reached at amerriman@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @anna_merriman