KY Court of Appeals orders new evidentiary hearing for man convicted in 2018 Georgetown campus rape case

A man convicted in connection with a 2018 rape on the Georgetown campus has been granted a new evidentiary hearing after the Kentucky Court of Appeals found the case record raised issues that required additional review, according to a WKYT report published Thursday, Oct. 23, 2026.

WKYT identified the defendant as Cody Arnett and reported that he is being held at the Scott County Detention Center. The appellate court’s decision, as described by WKYT, directed the lower court to hold a renewed evidentiary hearing related to matters raised during the post-conviction process.

The Court of Appeals noted in its decision that the prosecution did not cooperate when asked for an affidavit. WKYT reported that this lack of cooperation was part of the reasoning that led the appeals court to order the additional evidentiary proceedings.

Details of the underlying 2018 allegations and the specific issues the new hearing will address were not included in the portion of the record described by WKYT. However, the procedural basis described in the report centers on access to or production of an affidavit and how that affected the defense’s ability to develop or support the factual record for its claims.

Because the appellate decision remanded the matter for a new evidentiary hearing, the next phase of the case will move back to the trial court to conduct the additional proceedings. The outcome will depend on what evidence is presented at the hearing and how the trial court applies the appellate court’s instructions.

The case underscores how post-conviction litigation in Kentucky can turn on cooperation and documentation, including whether parties provide materials necessary to test claims in court. Even when a conviction has already been entered, Kentucky appellate courts can require further proceedings if they find that legal standards for developing the record were not met.

As the evidentiary hearing is scheduled and briefed, both sides will have another opportunity to address the contested matters that led the appeals court to remand. The decision does not, by itself, overturn the conviction, but it does reopen the procedural path for the trial court to consider issues identified by the appellate panel.