Ex-SF 49er Dana Stubblefield Denies Rape Charges

UPDATE: Dana Stubblefield's attorney sent out a press release Monday night saying that his client denies the charges.

Former San Francisco 49er Dana Stubblefield raped a disabled woman, according to charges filed Monday by the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office.

The 45-year-old retired defensive lineman—who firmly denies the allegations—stands accused of sexually assaulting a 31-year-old developmentally disabled woman he found through a babysitter website last year.

“This was a crime of violence against a vulnerable victim,” prosecutor Tim McInerny said. “She was looking for a job and she was unconscionably assaulted.”

Stubblefield—who’s 6-foot-3 and weighs more than 300 pounds—contacted the victim on SitterCity.com and asked her to come to his Morgan Hill home the next day for a job interview, said McInerny, a member of the DA’s Sexual Assault Unit.

After a brief interview, authorities said, the woman left. But Stubblefield called her back, offering to pay her for her time. When she returned, according to police, he carried the 5-foot-tall, 105-pound woman to a room, raped her, forced her to perform oral sex and then gave her $80.

From Stubblefield's home, the woman drove straight to the Morgan Hill Police Department to report the attack. In the course of the investigation, which took a year, police say they matched DNA evidence from a rape kit to Stubblefield.

“The victim immediately reported being assaulted,” McInerny told San Jose Inside. “After a thorough and complete investigation, the suspect was taken into custody.”

Police booked Stubblefield into San Jose’s Main Jail on Monday on five felony counts in connection to the assault—four counts of rape and one count of false imprisonment. Here's a link to the criminal complaint.

Stubblefield's attorney, Ken Rosenfeld, reached out to San Jose Inside Monday night to say that his client denounces the charges as false and fraudulent and that his sexual encounter with the woman was consensual.

“Dana Stubblefield is being unfairly targeted due to his celebrity and wealth by someone with full motivation to lie,” Rosenfeld said. “Mr. Stubblefield passed a lie detector test with flying colors and will present a full, vigorous defense against these false allegations.”

Rosenfeld said his client also provided exculpatory information to prosecutors proving that the woman who made the allegations asked him for a job and money after their meeting.

Stubblefield told his attorneys that he knew nothing about the allegations until February, nearly a year after he met the woman. Rosenfeld said the woman has prior violent criminal criminal convictions for an assault and resisting arrest after a hit-and-run.

“The District Attorney’s office should know better in cases like this where there is no evidence to support allegations that are already a year old,” said Rosenfeld. “This is a sophisticated party who has had multiple contacts with the criminal and civil justice system including criminal convictions in San Benito County. The clear motivation here is money. Mr. Stubblefield is being targeted by this person for his success.”

Stubblefield’s bail has been set at $250,000. According to the DA’s Office, he faces “substantial” prison time if convicted. The date of his arraignment at the South County Courthouse will be set within the next day.

Source: Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office

Source: Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office

Jennifer Wadsworth is the former news editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley. Follow her on Twitter at @jennwadsworth.


  1. Does his PFN and CEN numbers add credibility to the story? Inquiring minds want to know.

  2. Stubble field’s attorney, Ken Rosenfeld, reached out to San Jose Inside Monday night to say that his client denounces the charges as false and fraudulent and that his sexual encounter with the woman was consensual.


    In other words he has intercourse with this woman good luck with that. And why does an attorney reach out to SJI?

    Why because his client is GUILTY.

  3. Dana Stubblefield is going to have to answer to the court for his actions in this case, but it seems to me the investigating agencies (Morgan Hill PD and the DA’s office) owe to the public an answer if they in fact waited nearly a year to inform the accused of the victim’s allegations. Leaving aside the importance of crime scene investigation in a sexual assault case (was it done?), such cases are seldom clearcut, typically involve conflicting interpretations, and always require the accounts of both the accused and the accuser in order to properly asses the credibility of either. If it is true that Mr. Stubblefield was denied the opportunity to give his account of that particular encounter while it was still fresh in his mind, then it not unreasonable to conclude that he was denied the opportunity to present the best evidence of his innocence (for example, actions and utterances of the victim — who drove to the appointment — that might lead a reasonable person to have assumed her competent to give consent).

  4. She has a criminal past? Why didn’t you include her booking info? Why only $80 for her services? Why would you hire a mentally disabled woman take care of your kids? If she is that disabled why is she looking for work? Why the year long wait to charge Mr Stubblefield.
    Inquiring minds just want to know why you dragged this story into SJI?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *