Dugan Blasts Fritz Over Newspaper Raid

By Kenneth C. Rossignol

ST. MARY’S TODAY

HOLLYWOOD — At a local cable TV debate held on Wednesday evening, California attorney Bryan Dugan lambasted prosecutor Richard Fritz for his role in an 1998 election eve sweep of news stands in order to surpress news stories of his criminal record while in answer to a question, Judge Karen Abrams said that voters clearly should consider character when deciding how to vote.

Fritz was clearly taken aback at being held accountable for his leadership of the newspaper raid which he engineered and funded, along with former Sheriff Richard Voorhaar, along with seven deputies. Fritz looked shaken and his face reddened as he sputtered several times trying to take back control of the debated by railing about liberal judges, noting that people he sees on the campaign trail repeatedly tell him that they are tired of criminals being let off lightly by the courts.

Fritz attempted to paint the record of Judge Abrams as being soft on crime while he boasted of a record, which included what he claimed to be more than 100 jury trials as best preparing him for the bench.

Several times during the debate, Fritz’s record in being judged by the United States Court of Appeals as having led and advised the conspiracy to block the distribution of the news, was used by Dugan to show that Fritz lacked the judgement or temperament to be a Circuit Court Judge.

Fritz fired back at Dugan that the newspaper raid of 1998 didn’t stop him from supporting him in the 2002 states attorneys race but Dugan replied that this race was significantly different.

Dugan, who has brought a complex set of political equations to play in the race, has clouded what was thought to be a quick dispatch of Judge Abrams by Fritz in a two person race and sent all political conventional wisdom preconceptions scrambling for a place to land.

Fritz constantly attacked Abrams for her 2002 appointment to the bench by former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening, attempting to infer that she is carrying out a left-wing liberal agenda.

Abrams turned aside Fritz’s partisan blasts by stating simply that the job of a judge didn’t involve politics or political ideology, but instead was about deciding cases based on the law.

Abrams noted that her broad based 23-year legal career had prepared her well for the typical caseload of a circuit court judge, which only includes a small number of criminal cases.

One question for Fritz asked about his likely need to have to recuse himself from the criminal cases in which he has had contact with the defendants, either as a prosecutor or as a drug dealer defense attorney.

Fritz said that he would not have to recuse himself while Abrams said that she thought if Fritz were selected to be judge, he would constantly be requiring the other judges to have to be seated on the criminal cases, causing him to be assigned to domestic cases, an area in which he has little experience.

Fritz, who has worked exclusively as a prosecutor and from 1993 to 1998 as a criminal attorney working for most of the area’s leading drug dealers ironically, continued to slam the revolving door of justice which puts drug dealers back on the street.

Fritz’s claim of being tough on drug dealers doesn’t jive with his background.

A review of Fritz’s record as an assistant states attorney in charge of drug prosecutions prior to 1992 showed that he had only actually sent 9 drug dealers to jail while hundreds of cases were bargained away in plea agreements, resulting in very few drug dealers ever going to prison.