Erick Scott Guzman

Mr. Guzman and myself got off to a rocky start. Our first several interaction were anything, but pleasant. I am sure he had his motivations, but I was spoken to with hostility and aggression. It was absolutely reinforced that my case and situation was not of substantial importance (if any). Once p...ayment was received (generous at that) his "tune" changed a bit (in all fairness, towards the end of the case his presence was moderately bearable, but there may be other reasons for this that will come into play shortly). I did not have the strongest case, but it was not the weakest. However, this was not what I was lead to believe according to Mr. Guzman; I would be fine, "he had it covered." As the trial began, it was painfully obvious that he was getting annihilated by the D.A. Long story short, we lost, and on the word of two police officers with conflicting stories might I add (which was never addressed). There was also no physical evidence in the case. All that was presented was my behavior and maybe an irresponsible statement (but not one that concluded guilt). Mr. Guzman took the "high road" by trying to get intelligent with medical words and terms. It sounded foolish and some of the key contradictory aspects of the police officers testimonies were disregarded. I retrospect, I believe I could have done a better job questioning the witnesses. This is not a statement of arrogance, it is just what I believe. I personally would have went wild on the fact that these officers were "experts" in their respective fields, but the behaviors I was "displaying" were not inline with the behaviors of someone under the influence of the substance on which I was convicted (marijuana). Most people in California are familiar with marijuana and the way they described my behavior is nothing like the way someone on "pot" behaves (they also suspected a unspecified depressant. Even this is something that produces NOTHING like the described behaviors). Also, there was not ever a molecule of marijuana (or anything) or paraphernalia found anywhere in the vicinity of my vehicle. I was at the scene for awhile before the police arrived (over an hour). This translates to not have using a substance in quite sometime. None of these points were addressed.....To me? This seemed/seems like a lay up. Maybe I am wrong, but not addressing any of these points is or was unacceptable (There were more point. I'm not going to type out the whole case). Mr. Guzman pushed the case out a very long time because it was "strong" (there were also other factors). After the loss, the effect of the punitive actions became cruel and unbearable because of the delays. If I was going to lose, I should have went to court 10 months earlier and said, "I'm guilty" and it would have saved me immense suffering. Mr. Guzman dropped the ball when I came time to handle certain aspects of my probation sentence that were impossibilities. There was no way that I could satisfy two of the conditions because of where I live. In the years that have passed I have had to speak with multiple attorneys on how to exactly handle this. Every one of them has criticized Mr. Guzman for how this was handled (I am passing along the experience. These are their opinions). The whole situation was nightmare and a waste of money. In the end, the D.A. absolutely man handled Mr. Guzman. If this were myself. I would be several embarrassed. I believe, as is the case with almost any attorney I have spoken with (to be fair), Mr. Guzman has been afflicted with some sort of Hubris Syndrome..... Sorry Erick, you know who I am....I'm sure you have your version, but this is mine...