Meet the candidates for Oneida County Circuit Court

In Oneida County, Michael Fugle and Mary M. Sowinski vie for an open seat after Judge Michael H. Bloom chose not to run for reelection.

Fugle is corporation counsel for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel and in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2002. His resume is here.
​
Sowinski is an assistant district attorney for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel in Vilas County and an assistant DA in Milwaukee County as well as in private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. Her resume is here.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. 

The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Fugle

Sowinski

Michael Fugle

Why do you want to become a judge?

I want to serve as a judge in Oneida County because this is where I have chosen to call home, and the residents of Oneida County deserve to be served by excellent judges. Having worked with numerous good judges, I recognize my skills, abilities, and temperament will make me an exceptional Circuit Court Judge for Oneida County. I have
extensive courtroom experience across a broad spectrum of the law: criminal defense, small claims including evictions, civil disputes, family law, and prosecuting: for children in need of protection, for Mental Health Act cases, and for guardianship cases. I am an excellent lawyer with a record of good judgment, solid leadership, and a heart for service. I have been recognized by my peers as a 2008 Rising Star, and in 2017, I was appointed by the Wisconsin Chief Justice to serve on the Commission for Children, Families & the Courts on which I continue to serve.

I am an excellent listener and a decisive decision-maker but do not rush to judgment without considering all sides of an issue to avoid a poor decision. My knowledge and experience in various areas of the law, combined with the collegial environment that I foster, will enable me to manage my courtroom and schedule effectively, making me the best candidate to serve Oneida County as a Circuit Court Judge.

I recognize that people's actions do not necessarily define them but that there are necessarily consequences for actions. I demonstrate compassion for people in court in what are (usually) suboptimal circumstances. Through my experiences as both a public defender and a prosecutor protecting the most vulnerable, I have experienced the importance of applying the law fairly and compassionately to optimize each individual’s chance for future success and to support a healthy community. These experiences and leadership qualities will enable me to make sound and fair legal decisions as a judge for Oneida County.

Improving the health of our communities involves a well-functioning legal system. Ultimately, judges can play a leadership role in affecting meaningful change. In particular, finding and implementing methods to address mental health constructively is crucial. Many criminal and CHIPS & JIPS cases have, at their core, mental health issues. The “warehousing” of the mentally ill in correctional institutions and jails does not treat the root issues and creates a revolving-door situation. I believe that the judiciary can play a role by asking questions and framing the problems to collaboratively work toward addressing the mental health issues that afflict individuals, burden the community, and exacerbate criminal behaviors that harm the residents of our communities.

Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.

(Regarding one of the best U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions) (Note that this is how WJI received the answer, though it appears a cut and paste error may have occurred in the original.)
The Supreme Court analyzed six factors in determining that the Coffee search was lawful. This detailed and extensive analysis was not a factor in pre-Gant challenges but now forms the basis for the methodology required now. This analysis, requiring a reasonable suspicion to determine the lawfulness of a vehicle search, demonstrates that the pro forma searches of vehicles incident to arrest that were permitted pre-Gant are now to receive greater scrutiny. Gant requires law enforcement to approach a search incident to arrest differently and train officers differently. Gant provides an avenArizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), significantly impacted the application of the Fourth Amendment in Wisconsin. Prior to Gant, law enforcement performed warrantless searches of vehicles almost as an exercise of post-arrest evidence gathering. While Wisconsin did have limits on a search incident to arrest as set forth in State v. Fry, 131 Wis.2d 153 (1986), Gant reinvigorated the Fourth Amendment by limiting when a post-arrest search was permissible and under what circumstances such a search would be found constitutional. Gant demonstrated a willingness of the courts to more carefully determine the limits of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment and limit the expansion of law enforcement powers. Gant is significant because Gant stemmed the tide of the gradual encroachment of exceptions justifying warrantless searches.

State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84, was pending when Gant was decided. The Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that the Dearborn search was unconstitutional under Gant. Dearborn then overruled Fry. Gant shifted the analysis of whether a warrantless search was constitutional to requiring a more substantive Fourth Amendment review. See e.g. State v. Coffee, 2020 WI 53. Coffee further clarified Gant in that a lawful arrest for OWI, in and of itself, did not supply sufficient basis to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle. See Coffee, 2020 WI 53 at ¶64. Instead, the lawfulness of a search requires an analysis of whether the police have reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the
circumstances.

(Regarding worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion)
A Circuit Court Judge is a non-partisan position, and this question can lead to a partisan answer. However, decisions that extend the doctrine supporting warrantless searches are
generally suspect.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

The role of a Circuit Court Judge is to apply the facts of the case to the law as determined by Statute and interpreted by case law. A matter of first impression ought to be carefully researched and considered, but it is not the role of a Circuit Court to “make new law.”

A Circuit Court Judge should approach each situation individually and without considering prior interactions. In that vein, I began my law career as a criminal defense attorney and lived in a racially and economically diverse neighborhood. I have lived among people of differing backgrounds and concluded that any perceived differences are primarily transitory. In short, people are people, and making assumptions about a person based on perceived characteristics imposes extraneous and harmful prejudices into the facts of a case, leading to erroneous applications of the law.

Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

I was the trial counsel in Wisconsin Supreme Court case 2006 WI 83. At sentencing before the trial Court, I objected to the State introducing CCAP records to establish a prior conviction for an habitual criminality penalty enhancer. While unsuccessful in the trial court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately sustained my objection.

Otherwise, any termination of parental rights (TPR) cases I have prosecuted have been significant. Not necessarily because of the factual scenario or legal argumentation but because a TPR provides an abused or neglected child with permanency and stability.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

I have tried over twenty-five cases to a jury verdict. About half were criminal cases, one was a pro bono civil rights case, and the remainder were a mix of Termination of Parental Rights, Mental Health Act, and Child in Need of Protection and Services cases.

I have engaged in civil litigation as both plaintiff and defense counsel, from initial pleading through discovery and motion practice, trial, and appeal. I have written numerous appellate briefs in civil cases and, on two occasions, filed briefs to persuade the Wisconsin Supreme Court to deny certiorari.

I have advocated for meaningful change as a member of the Commission on Children, Families, and the Courts since my appointment in 2017. In that capacity, I was involved with helping the State Public Defender’s Office modify the “conflict” policy to exclude only a particular office rather than all staff of State Public Defender attorneys.

I have litigated extensively before the Division of Hearings and Appeals in parole/probation revocation, unemployment, and defending child abuse substantiations. I have been an advocate in other administrative appeals, including the Oneida County Board of Adjustment (zoning).

Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

In 2013, I was diagnosed with colon cancer. What was expected to be a three-day inpatient hospital stay ended up being three years of life-threatening conditions with multiple hospitalizations in addition to fighting metastasizing cancer and being fed through a tube into my heart for eight months.

Over this period, and through numerous unsuccessful and disheartening treatments, I continued to work a full-time job and was a (albeit diminished) participant in our family. Mainly, my contribution to my wife’s and five children’s lives was to remain positive, though not with my customary humor and liveliness, and to work to support them financially. It took a dogged form of courage that we don’t often associate with courage to get out of bed, dress in a suit, and go to work each day. I fought to be positive because I knew my wife and five children needed me to be strong. I also knew that my coworkers and community relied on me to do my job to the best of my ability.

I felt beaten down physically, mentally, and emotionally and did not see an end in sight. But I faced each day with the resolve to make it through with gratitude and humor for those around me. My courage came from recognizing that others needed me to be positive so they could function and realizing that to push on, I needed to put my fears aside and focus only on what I could do. With me supporting my family and co-workers, they, in turn, supported me. My courage to keep working, do my job well, and maintain an outward positive attitude gave courage to those around me, and we mutually supported and spurred one another along.

I was fortunate that my secondary conditions were eventually resolved and my cancer eradicated. I now appreciate having experienced building up an attitude of courage and demonstrating to my children that facing life’s struggles with humor and a positive perspective is life-changing.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

I am not in favor of additional requirements beyond the Wisconsin Court Rules. I do have concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Caperton v. Massey in that the standard announced requires judges to recuse themselves from cases that represent a probability of bias. Probability is a low standard and presents the ability, in many cases, for a litigant to argue that the probability exists. Additional considerations create an unequal application of recusal, lead to the punishment of litigants, and delay the administration of justice. However, I believe that the judge should recuse in any case where the judge has expressed sympathy for an idea or has indicated that the judge has made a determination before hearing all of the evidence.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

A Circuit Court Judge ought to apply the facts to the law in an unbiased manner, setting aside personal preferences when exercising discretion. “delivering true justice” is too amorphous of a phrase to be able to provide any non-partisan answer. How does this relate to a father who learns through genetic testing that the child he raised is not his biological child? Is “true justice” removing that person from the birth certificate? Is “true justice” (in accordance with current case law) to not remove the person from the birth certificate? How does either decision affect the non-party child? Often, seeking to “deliver true justice” means reaching a result that a court wants to reach – this is antithetical to the purpose of serving as a Circuit Court Judge.

Mary Sowinski

Why do you want to become a Judge?

I am a candidate for Oneida County Circuit Court Judge because I love this community, and want to do what I can to help us rise to today’s challenges while preserving the values and traditions that make this a special place. I was lucky to be born and raised here where a strong work-ethic, personal accountability, and self-sufficiency are not only valued but expected. I am also proud that collectively we are generous and concerned for our neighbors and community. As a fifth-generation Oneida County resident, my husband and I live in Three Lakes and are both active community members, volunteering whenever possible. My work as an Oneida County Judge will reflect these values. The cases on a local circuit court calendar impact many of the most important areas of our lives and community: the protection of individual rights and privacy, public safety, child custody, and family and business finances are examples of issues that arise daily. I will advocate for a justice system that is transparent, efficient, and effective. My 25 years of diverse legal work coupled with my personal experiences and values make me the best candidate to serve this community as judge.
 
Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.

A a defendant, litigant or victim, the only appellate case or cases that matter are those that determine the outcome of your case. I understand that these appellate cases have a very personal impact on our rights, freedoms and safety. Given the number of cases decided and the variety of legal issues that I have litigated, any number of cases could fall into either the ‘worst’ and ‘best’ categories. A particular case, Gabler vs. Crime Victim Rights Board, 2017 WI 67, is of unique importance to circuit court judges. Judge Gabler was the judge in a criminal case in which the victim disagreed with the sentence given to the defendant. The victim filed a complaint against the judge, and the state’s victim’s rights board levied a penalty against the judge. The judge challenged the penalty, arguing that the board had no right or ability to punish a circuit court judge, because the executive branch of state government has no authority over judicial decisions. This case reminds us how important the election of local judges are to us, particularly in the area of criminal cases that generally account for about half of a local circuit court calendar. Parties to a case are able to appeal trial court rulings that are inconsistent with the law, of course. While this ruling supports the absolute independence of judicial decisions, it also means that community members and victims of crimes have little recourse during a judge’s term if court decisions are made based on inexperience or that do not reflect the local community.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy as a circuit court judge would be to follow the law as written, period. As an attorney for over 25 years, a prosecutor for over 20 years, and a criminal prosecutor in Oneida County for over 8 years, I have honed the ability to apply the law to the facts of each case. According to the rules of ethics and Wisconsin statutes, circuit judges have three roles: first, to have exemplary personal and professional behavior and demeanor, and treat everyone with dignity and respect. Next, judges are expected to decide each and every case timely, fairly and impartially, using an open mind. Finally, judges are expected to provide input to policymakers on the efficient and effective functioning of the legal system. Taken together, these roles mean serving as a member of the legal system, certainly, but more importantly, as a leader of a justice system.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

I am the only candidate running for Oneida County Circuit Court Br. 2 who has prosecuted criminal cases. I have extensive experience in the protection of personal rights and privacy during criminal investigations, and the effective use of investigative materials in criminal prosecutions. This experience also included not filing criminal charges and working with alleged defendants and victims to try and resolve disputes or issues without the need to go to court or give someone a criminal record. I’ve also worked closely with victims to allow defendants to take responsibility for their actions by reaching reasonable plea agreements that satisfy the victim and protect the public. There is simply no way for me to distinguish these cases based on their ‘significance.’ Each was the only case that mattered to the victim or defendant involved.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

As a lawyer for 25 years, I’ve handled the full spectrum of cases that make up a circuit court’s calendar. My 20 years as a prosecutor includes criminal, juvenile, traffic and forfeiture cases. I’ve worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Oneida County for nearly 8 years. I’ve conducted dozens of jury trials in criminal and civil cases, written appellate briefs, and have been trained as a mediator. I have extensive experience in handling discovery and investigative materials in both civil and criminal cases. This includes warrants to obtain evidence including digital evidence and complicated electronic warrants involving cell phones and location information from cell towers, DNA and other evidence. I’ve served as Guardian ad Litem to protect the best interests of adults and children, and as counsel for at-risk adults. I have supervised both legal and non-legal staff and helped manage both private and public budgets. As the owner of a law firm in Oneida County, I handled a variety of civil cases and issues, including wills and other estate planning and real estate matters, and family court matters including divorce and custody. I’ve also held leadership positions in the local and state Bar Associations.
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

I recognize that I am incredibly fortunate in my life and have not faced the same challenges as many of my neighbors have. I feel grateful to have been raised on a farm in Wisconsin and with that comes a learned work ethic from little on. Growing up on a farm means doing what needs to be done starting with mucking out a pony’s stall, butchering chickens, picking rocks to clear fields, and standing on a grader to sort potatoes. As a teenager and young adult, I sweated in camp kitchens for summer jobs, and waitressed my way through high school and college. This is not a complaint. I simply modeled how my family and my neighbors worked. It was good preparation for campus work-study and jobs in the State Legislature which led to being a lobbyist and an interest in the law. I started at UW-Madison as a part-time law student but soon realized that a better plan was to take extra credits and graduate early. I have now been a lawyer for 25 years and apply that same work ethic to the challenges that I face in my legal work.
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?
 
The Wisconsin rules of judicial ethics require judges to be competent, independent, fair and impartial. These high standards for personal and professional conduct do not allow relationships of any kind to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The rules define ‘impartiality’ as not just a lack of bias and prejudice, but an ability and willingness to maintain an open mind in considering the arguments of all parties to a case. Accordingly, the judge is required to recuse herself from a case whenever there is personal bias or prejudice against a party or lawyer; personal knowledge of disputed evidence; a financial interest in the case; or certain family relationships with those involved in the case. Recusal based solely on the acceptance of a small campaign contribution in a small town like many in Oneida County may preclude a judge here from hearing many cases for which she would otherwise be appropriate. We have strong relationships with our friends and neighbors and are civic minded, contributing often to candidates accepting the challenge to run for office. However, at some point, the amount of a contribution relative to the campaign budget as a whole will certainly give the appearance of improper influence. I will certainly act independently and build public trust in the Oneida County justice system, taking into account not only my personal feelings of impartiality but also any appearance of impropriety.
 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

‘True justice’ is the fair and impartial application of the law to each individual that comes before the court, by a judge who has both courage and compassion. I am willing to take the time and effort to understand the individual circumstances of litigants. In terms of criminal cases, I believe that first-time offenders, particularly those with mental health and addiction challenges, deserve to be given a chance to redeem themselves through diversion and treatment when appropriate. The system can redeem and restore defendants and victims when guided by compassionate judges who know from experience what predatory behavior justifies the harshest penalties. I have the experience and courage to harshly punish or not, as the circumstances of the case require.