The Post-it Note That Released a Mother from Jail

How Wilson County Justice of the Peace Jared Shaw earned a Public Reprimand from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct

 

THE QUICK ANSWER In March 2026, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Reprimand and an Order of Additional Education to Jared Shaw, a Justice of the Peace in Wilson County, Texas. The Commission found that he jailed a mother for contempt in a school-truancy case without holding the required hearing or letting her have a lawyer, released her on a handwritten Post-it note and later met with her without the prosecutor.

 

CASE FILE AT A GLANCE
Judge	Hon. Jared Shaw, Justice of the Peace
Court	Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Floresville
County	Wilson County, Texas
CJC Number	25-0832
Sanction	Public Reprimand and Order of Additional Education
Date Issued	March 9, 2026
Signed By	Gary Steel, Chairman, State Commission on Judicial Conduct

 

A Truancy Case That Went Off the Rails

Justice of the Peace courts are the courts most Texans actually encounter. They handle traffic tickets, small claims, evictions and, in many counties, school truancy cases. They are also, as we noted in the Introduction to this series, frequently presided over by judges who are not licensed attorneys. That makes the rules of basic fair procedure all the more important, because for the people standing in these courtrooms, this judge is the whole of the justice system.

This case began as an ordinary truancy matter and ended with a mother in the Wilson County Jail. The Commission’s findings describe a judge who, faced with a parent he felt was not taking things seriously enough, skipped the legal safeguards that stood between her and a jail cell.

What Happened in Floresville

On April 7, 2025, Evelyn Marie Fleming was summoned to appear with her minor child for a hearing on a charge of Parent Contributing to Non-Attendance of a Minor which is a truancy offense. According to the Commission’s findings, Fleming arrived at Judge Shaw’s court and entered a plea of no contest, with a stated fine of $203.

The Commission found that during the hearing, the assistant county attorney and a Floresville ISD representative made rude and sarcastic comments and laughed at Fleming as she presented her case. Judge Shaw did not admonish either of them. He did, however, address Fleming’s daughter directly. After the child guessed she had missed about 40 days of school and was corrected to roughly 83, the Commission found, Shaw told the girl: “I can’t put you in jail, but I can put your mom in jail for three days.”

He then did exactly that. The Commission found that Judge Shaw held Fleming in contempt of court, had her arrested, and had her transported to the Wilson County Jail without holding a show cause hearing and without affording her the right to counsel. His written contempt order stated that Fleming had willfully disobeyed a written order for “not paying a fine of $603.00” on the truancy charge and ordered her confined for three days.

Released on a Post-it Note

What happened next is the detail that gives this case file its name. The Commission found that later that same evening, Judge Shaw visited Fleming at the Wilson County Jail and told her she would be released and ordered her to return to his court three days later.

He did not issue a new order releasing her. Instead, the Commission found, he signed a handwritten Post-it note, stuck it to the original contempt order, and wrote on it: “Release: 1 Day jail service. Reconvene for hearing on Thursday, 10 April.” A person’s liberty (their release from jail) was handled on an adhesive note.

When Fleming returned on April 10, the Commission found, she was led from the courtroom into Judge Shaw’s chambers without the assistant county attorney present. There, Shaw discussed the truancy charge with her and reduced the fine to $100 and time served of one day. When Fleming said she could not make full payment and that her financial situation was dire, the Commission found Judge Shaw failed to hold the mandatory hearing to determine whether the fine imposed an undue hardship on her. He did eventually find her indigent but not until July 18, 2025, and, again, without a hearing.

 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: CONTEMPT AND JAIL A judge cannot simply declare a person in contempt and send them to jail. Before someone is jailed for contempt, the law requires real safeguards: •      A show cause hearing — a real proceeding where the person is told what they are accused of and gets to respond before any jail sentence. •      The right to counsel — when jail is on the table, a person is entitled to be represented by a lawyer. •      An undue hardship hearing — the same protection we covered in Case File No. 1: if you cannot afford a fine, the court must hold a hearing and consider alternatives before treating nonpayment as a violation. •      A proper written order — orders affecting a person’s liberty are formal legal documents, not handwritten notes. These are not technicalities. They are the difference between a court of law and one person’s decision to put someone behind bars.

 

What the Judge Said in His Defense

Judge Shaw responded to the Commission, and his explanations are part of the public record. He said that at the April 7 hearing, Fleming was “flippant” and her daughter “sat smugly” and smiled as the absences were read aloud, and that it seemed to him neither was taking the situation seriously. He noted that Fleming was a cousin of his own chief clerk, who had “interceded previously” on her behalf, and said it appeared Fleming thought that family connection “would sway” his decision.

He also said this was Fleming’s third time before him (he described a 2023 case involving another of her children) and that he wanted to “send a message.” On the show cause hearing, Shaw maintained he had not failed to hold one but had “expedited the process” because all the necessary parties were already in the courtroom. He insisted he jailed Fleming for her own contempt, not her daughter’s behavior.

One factual point cuts against him. His contempt order recited that Fleming had failed to pay a $603 fine under a prior written order. The Commission found that the court documents he provided contained no evidence that such an order had ever been issued. In other words, the order that supposedly justified jailing her could not be located in his own court’s records.

The Rules He Broke

The Commission concluded that Judge Shaw’s conduct violated six provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, along with the Texas Constitution:

 

Rule	What It Requires
Canon 2A	A judge shall comply with the law.
Canon 3B(2)	A judge shall maintain professional competence in the law.
Canon 3B(3)	A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.
Canon 3B(4)	A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others.
Canon 3B(8)	A judge shall accord every person with a legal interest in a proceeding — or that person’s lawyer — the right to be heard according to law.
Canon 6C(2)	A justice of the peace shall not, except as authorized by law, initiate or consider ex parte communications about the merits of a pending case.
Texas Constitution, Art. V, § 1-a(6)A	A judge shall not engage in willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties or that discredits the judiciary.

 

The Sanction and What It Means

The Commission issued a Public Reprimand (the most serious sanction it can impose short of formal removal proceedings, the top of the public sanctions ladder we described in the Introduction) paired with an Order of Additional Education.

That second piece is worth understanding, because it is something this series has not seen until now. An Order of Additional Education requires the judge to go get training. Here, the Commission ordered Judge Shaw to complete four hours of instruction with a mentor (specifically, three hours in truancy law and one hour in contempt law) on top of his regular annual judicial education, and to finish it within 60 days of being assigned a mentor. The pairing sends a pointed message: the Commission concluded not only that Shaw’s conduct was serious enough to condemn publicly, but that he needed to be retaught the two areas of law at the center of this case.

The Commission found Shaw’s conduct “willful or persistent” and “clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties” (the constitutional standard for discipline). As with any sanction, he had 30 days to appeal to a Special Court of Review.

How It Played in the Press

Coverage of this reprimand was lighter than the high-profile cases earlier in this series, but it did draw attention from outlets that follow Texas courts and education. The education-focused outlet TexEdNews reported on the sanction in March 2026, framing it around the Floresville ISD truancy case at its center.

The relatively quiet coverage is itself worth a note. The judges who make national headlines are the exception. Most judicial discipline involves exactly this kind of case: a justice of the peace, a routine docket, an ordinary person who had a very bad day in a courtroom most of the public will never read about. The Commission’s public sanctions exist so that these cases are on the record whether or not they go viral.

The Takeaway

It is worth being fair about the human situation here. A judge sitting in a truancy docket, dealing with a child who has missed dozens of days of school, is looking at a real problem, and the frustration is understandable. But the Commission’s findings are a reminder that frustration is not a license to skip the law.

The procedures Judge Shaw bypassed (a hearing, a lawyer, a proper order, a hardship determination) are not obstacles to justice. They are justice. They exist precisely so that a judge who has decided someone needs to be taught a lesson cannot simply act on that feeling. A parent struggling to get a child to school may well need help, accountability, or both. What the law does not allow is jailing that parent on a contempt finding with no hearing and a Post-it note for an order.

Where Is He Now?

Jared Shaw is still on the bench. Unlike the retired judges in our first two case files, Shaw remains the sitting Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1 in Wilson County, and the Public Reprimand does not remove him from office.

He is also seeking another term. Shaw was a candidate for re-election in 2026 and appeared on the March 3, 2026, Republican primary ballot as the only Republican in his race (which fell just six days before the Commission issued this reprimand on March 9). He is set to appear on the November 2026 general election ballot. Whether the reprimand becomes an issue in that race is now up to Wilson County voters.

On the discipline itself: we found no public record of an appeal to a Special Court of Review. Unless Shaw appealed, the reprimand stands, and the Order of Additional Education obligates him to complete the four hours of mentored training in truancy and contempt law. The reprimand is permanent and public. If anything changes, the Gavel of Shame will follow up.

 

No One Should Go to Jail Without a Hearing The right to a hearing, to a lawyer, and to a fair process is not optional — it is the law. At Deandra Grant Law, we make sure our clients get every protection they are owed. If you are facing a DWI or criminal charge in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, or McLennan County, put our experience to work for you. Call (214) 225-7117  •  texasdwisite.com

 

The Gavel of Shame  •  Case File No. 4

By Deandra Grant  •  Deandra Grant Law  •  Published May 2026

Sources

Primary source

• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Reprimand and Order of Additional Education of the Honorable Jared Shaw, CJC No. 25-0832 (issued March 9, 2026). texas.gov
• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Sanctions Issued FY 2026. texas.gov

News coverage

• TexEdNews, “Judge Reprimanded for Mishandling Floresville ISD Truancy Case” (March 20, 2026). com

Election background

• Ballotpedia, “Wilson County, Texas, elections, 2026.” org

This post summarizes a public sanction issued by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. All findings and quotations are drawn from that public order. Judge Shaw provided written responses to the Commission, summarized above. This is general commentary on a public record, not legal advice.