One year ago few people outside of the Boston medical community had heard of Dr. Arif Hussain. A respected anaesthesiologist at the Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), Hussain was less than a year from completing his residency and would undoubtedly have obtained a good position at one of the top medical centers in the nation. But last winter the doctor's anonymity was shattered, and since then he has been at the center of an increasingly bizarre rape case that has gained nationwide attention. In the subsequent months eyewitnesses have reversed their testimony, jurors have voted one way and later denounced their decision and a judge has pronounced a sentence which seemed unusually light But above all, the case has shaken the medical community's foundations, causing it to reassess its ethical guidelines and its methods of enforcing ethical codes.

On September 5, 1980. Dr. Jason Hyams held a party for members of the anaesthesiology department at BWH. It was a seemingly normal social gathering but one session of drinking and flirting got out of hand and what happened later that night triggered a chain of complicated events with far-reaching implications.

Shortly after midnight, three male doctors and one female nurse got in a car and drove north for an hour to a Rockport beachhouse, where they engaged in some form of sexual activity. On that, much all four agree. The nurse charged that what occurredearly that morning was rape, but all three doctors maintained they were guilty only of poor judgment. They will only admit to having taken part in mutually consented intercourse, albeit imprudent consent.

The three doctors' trial last summer was characteristic of many rape cases. It is easy to prove that a woman has had sex, and sometimes possible to prove with whom she has had it. But unless there are witnesses--and there almost never are--or the woman is seriously injured and has obviously been attacked, the charge of rape invariably becomes the word of one person against another. Or against three others.

The three doctors and the nurse described the events of September 6, 1980 very similarly, disagreeing only as to whether or not force was involved. Carol DiPietro, a recovery room nurse at BWH, said that the three doctors made sexual advances towards her at the party. When she tried to rebuff them they pinned her arms to her sides, pushed her out of the building and forced her into the car.

During the hour-long ride to Rockport. DiPietro sat with Hussain in the backseat of the car. She said that he kept a strong grip on her the entire time, while he testified that she sat quietly in his lap and at one time even kissed his neck.

At the beachhouse, DiPietro charged. Hussain carried her inside and after Dr. Alan Lefkowitz papsed around a pipe of marijuana the three men look DiPietro into the bedroom and assaulted her She testified that the three tried to rape her simultaneously but were unsuccessful and did, so individually while the other two backed off.

DiPietro said that during the actual rapes. "I was physically numb, I couldn't fight. I was humiliated and disgusted. I couldn't do anything." But the doctors have claimed repeatedly that" in no way did she indicate she was not a willing participant in what was going on" and that what went on was "entirely of her own volition."

Independent testimony at the trial was ambiguous. The only witness to the four's exit from the party changed his description between the time he was first interviewed by the state police and the time he actually testified. At the trial. Dr. Michael Shesky denied having told the police that he saw two of the doctors drag DiPietro from the apartment, adding that he only heard scuffing in the hall which he presumed to be horseplay.

The defendants also called DiPietro "extremely suggestive" and a friend of thers at the party said she was braless and wore a revealing dress. But the waitress who served her and the three doctors at a coffee-shop on the road back from Rockport said she dremembered the woman in the group as wearing a severe shift, the top half of which was rumpled and covered with tint.

Hussain Letkowitz, and three counts of rape. Conviction of kidnapping would have meant the jury believed the doctors forced DiPietro into the car and took her to Rockport against her will. The critical charge in the controversy that followed the verdictwas aggravated rape. Aggravated rape entails the use of excessive violence or cooperative action. The judge instructed the jury that in order to convict for aggravated rape, they would also have to find the men guilty of kidnapping and each others rapes.

After a day and a half of deliberation the jury convicted each doctor of three counts of rape and in doing so laid the foundation for the mens' appeal. By convicting the doctors of three rapes each their own and each others', the jury indicated that it believed the men were acting in consort But the issue was confused when the three were not convicted of aggravated rape.

Joseph J. Balhro. Lefkowitz's attorney, called the verdicts an "obvious, blatant, and patent inconsistency." "Noting the related convictions, he added. "If that's not acting in consort. I don't know what is." In effect. Balhro and the other defense attormes are basing their appeal on the jury's decision not to convict the three doctors of as serious a crime as they could have.

After the trial two jurors said independently that they did not actually understand the judge's instructions concerning the sentences and based their vote on an interpretation of character Immediately after the trial. Deborah Badgett told Globe reporters that she had decided against the doctors because of her assessment of the nurse's character.

Six weeks later, a second juror released a statement saying that the jurors did not understand the legal definition of rape and based their decision on the belief that the doctors had not actually committed rape but had done something wrong for which they should be punished.