Hey, there! Log in / Register

Doctor acquitted of lewd act on a flight from Hawaii to Boston

A magistrate judge in Boston federal court ruled today that federal prosecutors failed to make their case that a local doctor committed a lewd act while seated next to a 14-year-old girl on a flight from Honolulu to Logan Airport in May, 2022.

Following a two-day trial that started Monday, US District Court Judge Donald Cabell acquitted Sudipta Mohanty of Cambridge, a primary-care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, on a count of committing a lewd, indecent or obscene act.

Mohanty had asked for a trial in front of a judge rather than a jury.

Mohanty was arrested last August after the FBI and the US Attorney's office in Boston concluded it had enough evidence to prove that Mohanty had exposed himself and masturbated to completion as he sat between his sleeping girlfriend and the 14-year-old on a 9 1/2-hour red-eye flight on Hawaiian Airlines more than a year earlier.

Mohanty's lawyer, Claudia Lagos, however, charged that the girl never reported her story to anybody during the flight and that in the days and weeks to follow, she repeatedly changed just what that story was, changing from an initial report the man next to her was masturbating under a blanket to eventually saying he was exposed to her:

[T]he lack of trustworthiness is highlighted by the utter lack of corroborative evidence, despite the behavior allegedly taking place in a setting replete with witnesses. Every version of events by the complainant is different, each less likely than the next, increasing in untrustworthiness and striking lack of corroboration.

Also, Lagos argued the US Attorney's office in Boston withheld evidence that would have helped make the case that Mohanty did nothing improper until just before the trial's scheduled start: Statements from flight attendants that they had seen nothing untoward going on in their row during the flight.

In fact, she asked for the case to be dismissed even before trial because of this failure to provide such key evidence, collected in interviews by FBI agents, that she argued would have exonerated her client from the start:

Dr. Mohanty is profoundly prejudiced through the deprivation of this information at this juncture and his ability to interview, subpoena, and call essential defense witnesses has been irremediably impeded by the Government's misconduct. For the Government to minimize the significance of this information because of flight attendants' lack of observations about the alleged crime would miss the point. Dr. Mohanty has incurred tremendous loss because of this prosecution for a crime he has told law enforcement from the get-go that he did not commit. These vital witnesses did not see anything not because they were not looking, but because Dr. Mohanty never committed the acts alleged by the Government.

Cabell denied the motion - but also a government motion to introduce details of what the girl allegedly told family members - before conducting the trial.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Question for people here with more legal knowledge than I -- can Dr. Mohanty start a civil suit against the accuser now to recover time and money lost and compensate for anxiety while defending this? I'd think he'd have a pretty solid defamation suit.

up
Voting closed 2

Not a lawyer, and haven’t reviewed this case, but the bar for criminal is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and for civil is “more likely than not”.

Given that federal prosecutors had enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict, I would speculate that if this case was brought in civil court, it would have the opposite outcome.

Based upon that, I suspect that a defamation case would fail, and he would be countersued for damages. So while he could bring that case, it would likely be a bad idea.

up
Voting closed 3

Rubbish! How can you bring a criminal case in a civil trail? That's beyond absurd! That being said, Mohanty will not sue the girl or her family, he will sue the US government who was fighting case on girl's behalf. That will be for denying him exculpatory evidence and lying about it. That will bring in the cash.

up
Voting closed 2

Wish to have a word. You can indeed bring a civil case based on a criminal charge, even one in which the defendant was acquitted (or never brought to court in the first place).

up
Voting closed 2

His lawyers would have to prove that the accusation was false. That's a lot different than the prosecution failing to prove that it was true.

up
Voting closed 4

They'd also have to prove it wasn't just a mistake on her part, but was actually malicious, and that seems beyond difficult.

up
Voting closed 2

makes abuse of process cases very difficult.

up
Voting closed 2

It seems like this young lady was telling a lie. What is the penalty for that?

He is VERY lucky his intended was sitting there with him.

up
Voting closed 3

The doctor was acquitted because he received the benefit of the doubt. This is not a finding that his accuser lied. Why should she not receive the same benefit?

up
Voting closed 2

It's not clear whether the girl testified at trial. If she did not testify and face the accused, then the judge might have had no choice other than to acquit. If the girl did testify and the judge found her not credible, then that would be something else.

up
Voting closed 4

Just sucks that in the US we still haven't figured out a good answer for "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." So often there's just no recourse for getting unlucky.

up
Voting closed 3

She changed her statement twice.

up
Voting closed 2

Being acquitted doesn't mean that she's lying, it just means that the judge didn't find that there was sufficient evidence to convict. The case hinged on the minor's testimony, and just because a flight attendant didn't happen to see it doesn't necessarily mean that it did or didn't happen.

up
Voting closed 4

W/R/T the flight attendants not noticing anything, I don’t feel like that means anything. If you’re not expecting to see someone masturbating in their seat, you’re not going to be looking for it, either. The flight attendants not noticing isn’t incredible. It’s shitty news because it weakens the case for the prosecution, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I tend to be biased in cases like this because I have been subject to unwanted genitals more than once in my life, starting at age 12 in the BPL courtyard. Never look up when you hear unexplained tapping…

There’s always the chance that she could have made it all up… except they would have had to put both stories under some real scrutiny to make a federal case out of it. He had the better lawyer and was smart to ask for a bench trial.

up
Voting closed 2

Still a child. Not an adult.

There are other possible explanations, of why she did not give all the details at once. That the judge heard of the varied versions secondhand, not firsthand in court, also obscures what actually happened.

I don’t think we will ever know the exact truth in this and both the accuser and the accused have been harmed by that.

up
Voting closed 1

That doesn't give her the right to make up stories and try to ruin somebody's life.

up
Voting closed 2

Withholding evidence from the defendant is serious misconduct. While I'm generally inclined to take the word of someone reporting sexual assault, we'll never know the truth of the matter in this case. Meanwhile, just as people here object to police misconduct we should also object to prosecutor misconduct.

Many cases of wrongful convictions occur because police or prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence that they were legally required to provide to defendants in time for them to properly prepare for trial. Our legal system if founded on the principles of the right to due process and innocent until proven guilty.

up
Voting closed 3

The exculpatory evidence in this case was that the flight attendants didn't notice anything. Whether this constitutes evidence, or lack of evidence, is debatable. Is the prosecution required to name every person that did not witness the crime?

up
Voting closed 3

Read the motion. The defense alleges (with lots of details about when and how) that they repeatedly asked for these interviews, and the prosecution said they didn't even exist.
Whether or not anybody thought they were exculpatory doesn't really matter. The prosecution can't actively mislead the defense about evidence. Even if we assume best case that this was just confusion/incompetence on the prosecution side, it's not OK.

up
Voting closed 1

so apparently the judge did not find it as convincing as you do.

up
Voting closed 1

A different judge may.

up
Voting closed 1

The flight attendants were witnesses at a time when the crime is alleged to have taken place so what they saw or didn't see can be very relevant.

According to the initial description from the victim he was masturbating under a blanket (a story which later changed).

If the flight attendants can testify that they saw him in his seat and he never had used a blanket during the duration of the flight wouldn't that be relevant testimony to the case?

She later changed that to say that his genitals were exposed to her and that he masturbated to completion.

If the flight attendants can testify that he was in a seat where they could see his lap plainly when they walked by when the supposed incident was taking place wouldn't that be relevant testimony to the case?

up
Voting closed 1

If everyone is pretty much sleeping, the flight attendants take their breaks and set up for the next meal or beverage or hot towel service. It is unlikely they would have been roving the cabin looking for pervs.

up
Voting closed 3

The FAs stay at their stations taking breaks and prepping for the next service. They typically don't spend much time in the cabin because the lights are down and people are sleeping if its a long overnight flight. He could have gone about and finished such business and no flight attendant would have wandered by.

up
Voting closed 1

The fact that the girl and her family didn't notify the airline for a while means the flight attendants would have no memory of details. The crew wouldn't remember if a particular passenger used a blanket or not or was awake or asleep. All they would remember is not remembering anything memorable.

up
Voting closed 2

Of course many commenters convicted him instantly.

As a famous Boston defense lawyer once said to me (sarcastically) "There should be some accusations which result in instant conviction."

Summing up much of the rape / MeToo discourse.

up
Voting closed 2

There were people who did, and plenty who pointed out that it was early on in the process and an affidavit is just that.

Oh and I made a joke about AJ Baker … getting off.

up
Voting closed 1

Dr. Mohanty was/is my primary care doctor. He is highly regarded by multiple other doctors at Beth Israel. He was always super professional and caring during my appointments.

If we read through the legal documents we see that at first the accuser told her grandparents he was playing with himself under a blanket. This was totally a guess. Only in the coming weeks and months, when it was suggested by other family members, did the story change and say he was fully exposed. The FBI interviewed 15 witnesses who were sitting close by and nothing unusual. The flight crew saw nothing unusual either. Dr. Mohanty was sitting next to his fiancee.

The accusations just don't add up and the changing accounts are very concerning. Bottom line is a judge agreed and Dr. Mohanty has been exonerated. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?!

up
Voting closed 1