First 2025 Judicial Candidate to Respond - Paul Litwin

2025 Judicial Candidate Paul Litwin was the first to respond to our latest Independent Gazette inquiry, setting the tone for a vital conversation on courtroom transparency.

Paul Litwin's Bio

My name is Paul Litwin.  I am a candidate for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the 44th Judicial District (Wyoming and Sullivan County).

I was born and raised in Wyoming County and currently reside in Factoryville. I'm married to Paula Litwin, and we raised our two children in Wyoming County.  Our daughter Catherine is a senior at Temple, and our son Paul is a freshman at Penn State.

I have a deep understanding of the values and challenges facing our community. I am committed to improving the community and helping to make it a place where my children and yours would want to return.  As a graduate of Lackawanna Trail High School and a lifelong resident, I've been actively involved in our community, maintaining membership in civic, service, business and professional organizations, and supporting our schools.

I’ve maintained a legal practice in Tunkhannock since 1995.  My commitment to justice, fairness, and community well-being has guided my entire career. As Wyoming County Solicitor, I've provided legal counsel to the County Commissioners and represented the County in a wide range of complex legal matters. Prior to that, I served as an Assistant District Attorney for over 12 years, gaining valuable experience in criminal law and the juvenile justice system. I also dedicated years to representing the legal and best interests of children as a Guardian Ad Litem, instilling in me a deep compassion for the most vulnerable members of our community.

Additionally, I have maintained a private practice representing numerous townships, boroughs, municipal authorities and zoning hearing boards, local businesses, non-profit organizations, families and individuals. My professional relationship with my clients reflects my deep roots in the community and commitment to serving a diverse range of clients,

Objectivity has been my guiding principle. Through my 30 years of experience, I have developed strong listening skills, a level temperament, common sense and steady demeanor which are vital for the position of judge. I understand the needs and concerns of our community and believe in a fair and impartial judiciary that upholds the law while ensuring equal access to justice for all. I will bring my experience, integrity, and commitment to serving our community to the bench.​

I am candidate number one on both the republican and democratic primary ballot and respectfully ask for your vote in the May 20, 2025, primary election.

---

The letter from the Independent Gazette with Paul Litwin's Responses:
​
Dear Judicial Candidates,
Legislation is being introduced to allow the recording of civil and criminal court proceedings in Pennsylvania, beginning with a memorandum from State Representative Jamie L. Flick. Supporters argue that cameras in the courtroom would promote transparency, foster public understanding, and help deter unethical behavior. Importantly, this proposal envisions recordings functioning as a kind of “black box” system—archived securely and accessed only when questions, complaints, or incidents arise. The intent is not to sensationalize proceedings, but to create an objective, verifiable record that protects the integrity of the judicial process and builds trust among all who participate in or are affected by it. As this proposal moves forward, many voters would appreciate knowing your position and how you believe transparency and fairness can be responsibly balanced in our courts.

Question 1: Promoting Trust Through Transparency
Do you believe transparency plays a role in maintaining accountability and public trust in the courtroom?

Please explain your position. If you support transparency, what specific steps would you take to promote it? If you have reservations—such as concerns about cameras, recordings, or public access—how do you believe the integrity of the courtroom is best maintained while addressing those concerns?
​
Paul Litwin:
The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees public trials, a cornerstone of fairness and transparency that discourages misconduct and ensures equal treatment. While this right isn't absolute, and limitations may be necessary for public good, order, or morals.  Juvenile proceedings are a common exception to public proceedings and are generally closed to protect vulnerable individuals. The failures in Luzerne County highlighted the need for safeguards, though greater public access isn't the primary reform. Mindful of historical concerns regarding unjust secret proceedings, I would carefully consider the facts of the case and the applicable law before closing proceedings to the public.

Question 2: Audio and Video Recording in the Courtroom
Do you believe allowing audio or video recording in the courtroom—prior to any formal legislation—can support transparency and judicial accountability?

Would you permit such recordings in your courtroom, and under what circumstances? Please explain your position, including any limitations or protections you feel are necessary to preserve courtroom integrity and the fair administration of justice.

Paul Litwin: 
While audio and video recordings could enhance transparency, significant concerns exist. Witnesses, especially victims and children, might be less willing to testify if recorded. Jurors could be exposed to outside influences, compromising impartiality. Recordings risk being edited, misrepresenting proceedings. Individuals may have legitimate privacy concerns. While the "black box" concept with restricted access addresses some issues, it doesn't promote public openness. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court currently governs courtroom recordings, with limited discretion for trial judges and legislative criminalization of violations. Generally, only nonjury civil proceedings can be recorded with the consent of all parties and witnesses. As a candidate for judge, I am hesitant to comment on potential legislation in this area, except to mention that the Supreme Court has constitutional authority over court procedure rules.

.
Question 3: Recording in Judicial Chambers
What is your stance on allowing audio or video recording in judicial chambers?

Supporters argue that limited recording—used as a safeguard—could help ensure integrity and deter inappropriate behavior behind closed doors. Do you believe this type of internal accountability has value? Please share your perspective, including any concerns you may have about privacy, confidentiality, or judicial independence.

Paul Litwin:
Recording in judicial chambers could create a clear record, potentially enhancing accountability and resolving misunderstandings. However, it could stifle candor and open communication, particularly in settlement conferences intended to be less formal. A major practical drawback is that those intending inappropriate behavior would likely avoid recorded settings. The cost of storing, indexing, and securing these recordings would be substantial. Furthermore, the premise of deterring misconduct through open surveillance seems flawed. The potential negative impact on open discussion and the practical challenges of implementation appear to outweigh the benefits.


Thank you for your time and service to the people of Pennsylvania.
Respectfully, Lou Jasikoff and Mike Lacey

Stay tuned as more judicial candidates from Wyoming and Sullivan Counties weigh in.
Follow our new Facebook page for updates, insights, and the questions that matter most to Pennsylvanians—every single month.