A Williamsburg attorney was arrested Thursday morning at the Whitley County Judicial Center for allegedly being intoxicated while in court.
James Wren, II, 69, was taken into custody at approximately 10 a.m. Thursday by Whitley County Sheriff Bill Elliotte.
Wren had been actively working on cases in the judicial center when other attorneys made complaints to law enforcement regarding Wren allegedly smelling of alcohol, according to Elliotte. Wren had also allegedly been seen falling asleep during the court proceedings.
Elliotte said that he waited for Wren to leave the courtroom and approached him. Wren allegedly smelled heavily of alcohol and was taken into custody. He has been charged with alcohol intoxication in a public place – first and second offense.
Wren was taken to the Whitley County Detention Center.
Wren has had a prior history involving alcohol.
In May 2023, he was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and reckless driving while on his way to Whitley Circuit Court. At that time, Wren was actively defending an attempted murder case and was enroute to court for the second day of a jury trial. His arrest prompted a mistrial in that case.
Wren was ultimately convicted of both charges against him following a two-day trial in February 2024. During the trial, Wren told jurors that his heightened BAC was due to an interaction between a concoction of prescriptions he regularly takes for various health conditions and a testosterone gel that he had been using to “help keep him awake.” Wren also told jurors that he had “lathered” himself in it the morning of the incident, using approximately six to seven times the prescribed dose. The gel reportedly contained an ethyl alcohol base.
He was sentenced to 10 days in the county jail as part of his conviction, which he was permitted to serve on weekends.
Wren sought to overturn the conviction, filing a formal statement of appeal just weeks after his trial. The conviction was eventually upheld by Circuit Court Judge Paul Winchester, who ruled that Wren’s arguments for an appeal “were not relevant to the case.”
