The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has publicly reprimanded Wilson County Justice of the Peace Jared Shaw after concluding he mishandled a truancy-related case involving a mother who was jailed following an April 7, 2025 hearing. In a four-page order, the Commission laid out a detailed record of what happened in Shaw’s courtroom, what followed after the hearing, and why the Commission determined that his conduct violated multiple canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The matter arose from a case involving Evelyn Marie Fleming, who was summoned to appear with her minor child on an allegation of parent contributing to non-attendance of a minor. By the end of its review, the Commission concluded Shaw should be publicly reprimanded and ordered to complete additional education in both truancy law and contempt law. 

According to the findings, Fleming came to court on April 7, 2025 and completed a plea of no contest with a stated fine of $203. While presenting her case, Fleming said Evelyn Huron, identified in the order as the assistant county attorney, and Jennifer Lane, identified as the Floresville ISD representative, made “rude and sarcastic comments and laughed at her.” The Commission found that Shaw did not admonish either woman, and that failure later became part of the disciplinary case against him.

Exchange about absences became a turning point in the hearing

The reprimand says the hearing intensified when Shaw asked Fleming’s daughter whether she knew how many school days she had missed. The child responded by guessing 40 days, but Lane corrected that figure and said it was closer to 83 days absent. It was during that exchange, according to the Commission, that Shaw addressed the minor child and said, “I can’t put you in jail, but I can put your mom in jail for three days.”

The Commission found that Shaw held Fleming in contempt of court and had her arrested and transported to the Wilson County Jail without holding a show cause hearing and without affording her the right to counsel. The written contempt order stated that Fleming had willfully disobeyed a written order issued that same day by not paying a fine of $603 and for parent contributing to non-attendance of a minor, and it directed that she be confined in the county jail for three days. But the Commission also found that the documents provided to it failed to contain evidence of a prior order requiring Fleming to pay the $603 figure Shaw referenced. 

Jail order was followed by same-day jail visit and handwritten release note

Later that evening, on April 7, 2025, Shaw went to the Wilson County Jail and met with Fleming there. According to the findings, he told her she would be released that evening and ordered her to return to court on April 10, 2025 at 12:30 p.m. The Commission said Shaw did not issue a new formal order releasing Fleming from confinement. 

Instead, the reprimand states that Shaw signed a post-it note attached to the original April 7 order. The handwritten note said, “Release: 1 Day jail service. Reconvene for hearing on Thursday, 10 April @ 1230.”

Follow-up proceeding moved into chambers, outside presence of prosecutor

When Fleming returned to court on April 10, the Commission found that she did not remain in the courtroom for a standard public proceeding. Instead, the order says she was led from the courtroom to Shaw’s chambers and that Huron, the assistant county attorney, was not present. Inside chambers, Shaw discussed the charge of parent contributing to non-attendance of a minor, reduced the fine to $100, and credited Fleming with time served of one day. The Commission later found that this chambers meeting constituted an improper ex parte communication concerning the merits of a pending judicial proceeding. 

The disciplinary findings also say Fleming told Shaw she was unable to make full payment and that her financial situation was dire. Even then, the Commission found, Shaw did not hold the mandatory hearing needed to determine whether the judgment imposed an undue hardship on her. The order states that he eventually found her indigent on July 18, 2025, but did so without a hearing.

Shaw told commission mother and daughter were “flippant” and expected leniency

In written responses quoted directly in the reprimand, Shaw gave his account of what happened in court and why he reacted the way he did. He wrote, “During the court appearance on 7 April 2025, Ms. Fleming appeared with her daughter. She was flippant with her answers to the court and the plaintiff’s members, and her daughter sat smugly and at times was smiling when details of her absences were read aloud.” He continued by saying, “It was obvious to me that both the mother and daughter did not take the situation seriously, and were expecting leniency again.”

Shaw also told the Commission that Fleming was the cousin of his chief clerk and said the clerk had previously interceded on Fleming’s behalf. In his response, Shaw wrote that it was apparent to him that Fleming and the child thought their family relationship with his chief clerk would sway his decision.

Shaw said daughter’s conduct reflected on Fleming, but denied jailing her because of child’s behavior

The Commission’s findings also addressed whether Shaw jailed Fleming because of the daughter’s demeanor in court. According to the order, Shaw admitted he did not send Fleming to jail because of her daughter’s behavior, but he also stated, “I did state that her daughter was being flippant and smiling when she should have taken the situation more seriously and that reflected on her as a mother.” He then added, “I sentenced Ms. Fleming to jail for contempt of court, and her own actions – not those of her daughter.”

The order says Shaw offered another explanation for the contempt finding as well. According to the Commission, Shaw said he had dealt with a previous case in 2023 involving similar issues with another one of Fleming’s children and wanted to send a message because this was the third time she had appeared before him. 

Commission rejects claim that show cause hearing was effectively “expedited”

One of Shaw’s defenses, as quoted in the reprimand, was that he did not fail to conduct a show cause hearing at all. The Commission wrote that Shaw maintained he had merely “expedited the process of a show cause hearing since all the necessary parties were in the courtroom already.”

The Commission then tied those facts to specific judicial standards and constitutional provisions. It cited Canon 2A, requiring a judge to comply with the law, Canon 3B(2), requiring professional competence in the law, Canon 3B(3), requiring order and decorum, Canon 3B(4), requiring a judge to be patient, dignified and courteous, Canon 3B(8), requiring the right to be heard according to law, and Canon 6C(2), prohibiting improper ex parte communications on the merits of a pending proceeding. The order also cited Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, which bars willful or persistent conduct clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties or conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or administration of justice. 

Judge ordered to complete additional education in truancy and contempt law

Along with the reprimand, the Commission ordered Shaw to obtain four additional hours of instruction with a mentor beyond his regular annual judicial education for fiscal year 2026. The Commission specified that three of those hours must be in truancy law and one hour must be in contempt law. It also authorized disclosure of certain information about the matter to the Texas Justice Court Training Center so the appropriate mentor can be assigned. Once Shaw receives notice of that assignment, the order says he must complete the additional education within 60 days. 

The reprimand was issued in March 2026 and signed by State Commission on Judicial Conduct Chairman Gary Steel.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---