NEWARK -- As she braces for a state prison sentence, Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield has lost a bid to throw out her conviction on charges of sexually assaulting a disabled man.



Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare on Wednesday denied Stubblefield's motion to set aside the jury's guilty verdict and either grant her a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. Stubblefield, 46, of West Orange, was convicted on Oct. 2 of two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault.



In issuing her decision, Teare said that, given the evidence in the case, she would not overturn the jury's verdict. According to Teare, Stubblefield has failed to show the conviction was an injustice.



"Based upon the evidence that was presented during the trial, a reasonable jury could have found and did indeed find that the defendant was guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt," said Teare, according to an audio recording of Wednesday's hearing.



The judge also said jurors were able to judge the credibility of all of the witnesses, including Stubblefield, and "accord their testimony its due weight."



Teare later quoted from a 1993 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court: "Faith in the ability of a jury to examine evidence critically and to apply the law impartially serves as a cornerstone of our system of criminal justice. Unless no reasonable jury could have reached such a verdict, a reviewing court must respect a jury's determination."





Stubblefield is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 15. 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.



Stubblefield, who was previously chairwoman of the Rutgers' philosophy department, had been on administrative leave without pay before and during her trial. Rutgers officials have declined to explain the university's actions concerning Stubblefield's employment status in response to her conviction.



The 35-year-old victim, known as D.J., has cerebral palsy and is unable to speak beyond making noises. D.J. wears diapers and requires assistance with walking, bathing, dressing and eating, his mother testified during the trial.



During the trial, the state presented testimony from psychologists who determined D.J. is mentally incompetent and cannot consent to sexual activity. Due to his cognitive impairments, D.J.'s mother and brother have been designated as his legal guardians, Essex County Assistant Prosecutor Eric Plant said during the trial.



But Stubblefield claimed during the trial that he is not intellectually impaired and was able to communicate through a controversial typing method, known as "facilitated communication." Under that technique, Stubblefield said she provided physical support to D.J. as he typed messages on a keyboard.

Stubblefield has said she and D.J. fell in love. The sexual acts occurred in her Newark office in 2011.

Anna Stubblefield, 46, a Rutgers-Newark professor from West Orange, testified on Sept. 23 at her trial on two counts of aggravated sexual assault for allegedly abusing a disabled man in 2011. Stubblefield was ultimately convicted.

During Wednesday's hearing, Stubblefield's attorney, James Patton, reiterated her claims about facilitated communication in arguing that the jury's verdict should be set aside.



Patton claimed the state had failed to prove a crucial element needed to support the conviction, which is that she knew or should have known D.J. was mentally defective or physically helpless to the point where he could not consent.



"There's no evidence that she actually knew that he was incompetent," said Patton, according to the audio recording. "Her actions and the openness with which she acted and the fact that she, in fact, disclosed the relationship strongly indicates that she had no idea that he was mentally incompetent."



As for whether Stubblefield "should have known" about D.J.'s mental incompetence, Patton countered that claim by pointing out how Stubblefield worked with D.J. through facilitated communication and believed in the technique's effectiveness.



"Her knowledge and exposure to facilitated communication certainly justified her belief in the fact that it worked as well as the communication that she shared with D.J.," Patton added.



Patton noted how Stubblefield learned information from D.J., including a nickname he had been called and the whereabouts of his brother.



Patton also referred to an exchange, after the sexual relationship was disclosed, when he claims Stubblefield was facilitating D.J. and he correctly answered questions posed by his brother about a relative. Stubblefield had no idea what the correct answers were, according to Patton.

But Patton also asked Teare to consider the "ideomotor effect" that was discussed by one of the state's witnesses in regard to facilitated communication.

That effect refers to the concept that facilitators are unaware they are moving the disabled person's arm. Critics of the technique have said that unconscious process is similar to what is seen in the use of Ouija boards, the classic board game supposedly used to connect players to the spirit world.





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.



Stubblefield worked with D.J. through facilitated communication over the next two years. During the trial, she claimed D.J. 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.



On the witness stand during the trial, Stubblefield said "I knew he was the one who was saying everything that he typed."



"I wouldn't have fallen in love with him if he was somebody who wasn't capable of consent," said Stubblefield, who referred to their romance as "just a regular relationship."



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 -

the state's witness who discussed the "ideomotor effect" - said 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.

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