California Criminal Case Reveals Early Chapter in Jared Levy Ross’s 20+ Year Pattern of Psychological Issues and Credibility Concerns

 

On February 19, 2003, 18-year-old Jared Levy Ross became involved in an incident in Los Angeles County that triggered a criminal prosecution. Los Angeles Superior Court records in Case No. SA047982 show that authorities filed a complaint on March 5, 2003, charging him with a felony count of evading a peace officer while operating a motor vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (California Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a)) and a misdemeanor assault count (Penal Code section 240).

Bail was posted at $35,000 on March 12, 2003, with Michael Ross acting as surety under register number LAX469290021. The case advanced through arraignment, where Ross pleaded not guilty, and a preliminary hearing on July 25, 2003. At that hearing the assault count was dismissed by the People pursuant to Penal Code section 859B on statutory time grounds. Ross was held to answer on the felony evading count. An information was filed on August 8, 2003, and Ross again pleaded not guilty.

The matter reached a resolution on December 15, 2003, in West District Department LXD before Hon. Keith L. Schwartz. The minute order states the following:

"INFORMATION FILED ON 08/08/03. COUNT 02: 415 PC INF ON 12/15/03 ... CASE CALLED FOR BENCH WARRANT HOLD ... COUNT 01: DISPOSITION: DISMISSAL IN FURTH OF JUSTICE PER 1385 PC DEFENSE MOTION VACATING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AS TO

COUNT ONE IS GRANTED." (Later proceedings clarified the sequence.)

On that date the felony evading charge was reduced to a misdemeanor by interlineation under Penal Code section 17(b)(4) on the People's motion. A disturbing the peace infraction under Penal Code section 415 was added by interlineation. Ross entered nolo contendere pleas to both counts and was convicted on both.

Sentencing occurred the same day. Imposition of sentence was suspended and Ross was placed on summary probation for two years. The minute order details key conditions:

"AS TO COUNT (01): ... THE COURT ADMONISHES THE DEFENDANT ... COURT READ

AND CONSIDERED THE PROBATION REPORT..... Continue in psychological counseling

currently in place and take medications as directed by medical doctor. The court read and considered both a probation report and a psychological report at sentencing."

Additional conditions required 50 hours of community service (proof due by April 15, 2004), payment of a $100 restitution fine, surrender of his driver's license to the clerk, no driving unless lawfully licensed and insured, no alcohol, no narcotics or dangerous drugs, no dangerous or deadly weapons, obedience to all laws, and use of his true name with government and police officials. A right thumb print was taken pursuant to Penal Code section 992.

Throughout 2004 the court held multiple progress report hearings that specifically monitored compliance with the psychological program. On April 15, 2004, defense counsel filed proof of psychological program participation and paid the restitution. On August 16, 2004, proof was filed that Ross was participating in psychological sessions. The case was continued on December 9, 2004, to December 9, 2005, for a "psychological update."

On December 9, 2005, before Hon. Katherine Mader, the court granted a defense motion by attorney James Blanco and vacated the judgment on the evading count under Penal Code section 1385, dismissing it in the furtherance of justice. Ross was deemed never to have been convicted of that offense. An arrest disposition report was transmitted to the California Department of Justice on October 8, 2008. Nearly seventeen years later, on September 2, 2022, before Hon. Liliana Gonzalez, the court granted a motion under Penal Code section 1203.4. The plea, verdict, or finding of guilt was set aside and vacated, a not guilty plea entered, and the information dismissed. Attorney Kevin Gres represented Ross on that motion.

The Los Angeles Superior Court Archives and Records Center produced 34 pages of these minute orders on June 26, 2026, in response to a public records request. The response letter noted that the full case file is not stored at the Archives and directed further inquiries to the originating Santa Monica Courthouse at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. That full file would contain the original complaint, information, preliminary hearing transcript, plea and sentencing transcript, the psychological report, the probation report, and the dismissal motions.

 

The Central Role of Psychological Evaluation

The repeated emphasis on psychological care stands out in the record. A psychological report was prepared and reviewed by the court before sentencing in December 2003. The probation

terms expressly required continuation of counseling already in place plus medication compliance as directed by a medical doctor. The court scheduled specific hearings to verify progress on the psychological program. This level of judicial oversight and condition-setting is not standard for routine misdemeanor traffic matters. It indicates the court determined that mental health considerations were material to Ross's culpability, risk to public safety, and amenability to probation.

 

A Pattern Spanning More Than Twenty Years

The 2003 case forms the earliest documented chapter in a longer pattern reflected across public records. Court-ordered psychological counseling and medication management began in 2003 and continued under judicial supervision into 2005. Later records show additional significant events, including Ross's 2019 discharge from an emergency medicine fellowship at Washington University in St. Louis (detailed in Missouri Court of Appeals opinion ED111235) and 2021

text-message threats to a therapist that led to Kirkwood Police Department Report No. 21-1684 and a Full Order of Protection (affirmed on appeal in 2023).

Employment and credentialing records have also revealed discrepancies. Ross's publicly circulated curriculum vitae lists certain hospital positions in ways that do not always align with direct responses received from those institutions under open records laws. For example, some hospitals confirmed intermediary staffing arrangements or stated no employment relationship existed. These patterns of representation have drawn scrutiny in the context of licensure accuracy and professional transparency requirements.

Together, the 2003 psychological mandates, the fellowship discharge, the 2021 protective order proceedings, and inconsistencies in employment disclosures paint a longitudinal picture that has become relevant to evaluations of fitness to practice emergency medicine.

 

Primary Sources

The factual foundation rests on the official Los Angeles Superior Court minute orders produced in June 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals opinion in ED111235, Kirkwood Police Department records, and related hospital and board responses under open records laws. The full underlying Los Angeles case file remains accessible through the Santa Monica Courthouse.

●              Dr Jared Ross Official site: http://drjaredross.com/

●              Jared Ross, from Do No Harm X/Twitter: https://x.com/DrJaredRoss

 

Publicly available court documents and records obtained through lawful open records processes continue to provide a transparent view of this history. For physicians entrusted with emergency patient care, questions of accurate disclosure, mental health continuity, and professional candor carry significant weight in maintaining public trust.