.jpg)
DA Jeffery Cruden Publicly Discredits Victim of Sexual Assault with False Statements About the Victim and her Case. True crime/coverup story
.jpg)
• On August 9th of 2025 there was a peaceful protest held in the Outer Banks, North Carolina to support survivors of sexual violence and to bring to light concerns regarding Jeffrey Cruden’s handling of sexual assault cases.
• After this protest supporters of this cause shared and sent out flyers about these concerns.
• The specific case of Survivor X’s reported sexual assault was highlighted in these flyers. This name, Survivor X, was used to protect the individual’s safety and privacy when describing her case publicly.
• However, just after the flyers were sent out asking people to call, email and question DA Cruden; he responded to emails sent to him in ways we believe are unethical, constitute willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute.
• However, just after the flyers were sent out asking people to call, email and question DA Cruden; he responded to emails sent to him in ways we believe are unethical, constitute willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute.
*Affidavits have been submitted via N.C.G.S. 7A-66 to request the removal from office of the current district attorney of the 1st prosecutorial district in North Carolina, Jeffery Cruden.These have been submitted and allege that Jeffery Cruden has engaged in willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute.
.jpg)
History of removal proceedings in North Carolina:In 1995, DA Jerry Spivey was removed from office after making racial slurs and using the “N” word regarding another patron in a bar. This was deemed as bringing the office into disrepute even though it occurred when the DA was off work and not acting as a government official. In 2012, DA Tracey Cline was removed from office for making false comments about a sitting judge.In 2021, Greg Newman was removed from office for mishandling sexual assault cases and not respecting victim rights as defined by Marsy’s law.
*If DA Cline can be removed for making false statements about a judge, then it follows that DA Cruden should be removed for making false statements about a witness and victim of sexual assault when such statements interfere with the administration of justice and show a willful disregard for the professional ethics and standards.
How removal works: 7A-66 removal proceeding is started by citizens submitting sworn affidavits to the clerk of the superior court where the DA resides. The Superior court judge reviews the affidavits and holds a public hearing on the matter after reviewing that there is probable cause that the allegations, if true, could result in removal per N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-66. Why we believe DA Cruden qualifies for removal: DA Cruden utilized his assistant to share statements via government email about a reporting witness who had reported a sexual assault to Dare County. These statements were sent out publicly and were not part of an investigation or court proceeding. We believe that these statements were intended to discredit the reporting witness and further DA Cruden’s political career. This website can provide you with evidence that DA Cruden made public statements of fact about the reporting witness, Survivor X (AKA Melissa Nicholson). We believe that DA Cruden’s behavior violated rules 3.6, 3.8, 4.4, 8.2, and 8.4 of the N.C. Rules of Professional Ethics by making and sharing these statements about the reporting witness in this sexual assault case.
*If DA Cline can be removed for making false statements about a judge, then it follows that DA Cruden should be removed for making false statements about a witness and victim of sexual assault when such statements interfere with the administration of justice and show a willful disregard for the professional ethics and standards.
How removal works: 7A-66 removal proceeding is started by citizens submitting sworn affidavits to the clerk of the superior court where the DA resides. The Superior court judge reviews the affidavits and holds a public hearing on the matter after reviewing that there is probable cause that the allegations, if true, could result in removal per N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-66. Why we believe DA Cruden qualifies for removal: DA Cruden utilized his assistant to share statements via government email about a reporting witness who had reported a sexual assault to Dare County. These statements were sent out publicly and were not part of an investigation or court proceeding. We believe that these statements were intended to discredit the reporting witness and further DA Cruden’s political career. This website can provide you with evidence that DA Cruden made public statements of fact about the reporting witness, Survivor X (AKA Melissa Nicholson). We believe that DA Cruden’s behavior violated rules 3.6, 3.8, 4.4, 8.2, and 8.4 of the N.C. Rules of Professional Ethics by making and sharing these statements about the reporting witness in this sexual assault case.
We believe that DA Cruden’s behavior violated rules 3.6, 3.8, 4.4, 8.2, and 8.4 of the N.C. Rules of Professional Ethics by making and sharing these statements about the reporting witness in this sexual assault case.
According to the National Prosecution Standards section 2-14.4: “the prosecutor should not make any public, extrajudicial statement that has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding. In particular …the prosecutor should not make any public, extrajudicial statements about the following matters, unless the information is part of the public record of the criminal proceeding: a. The character, reputation, or prior criminal conduct of a suspect, accused person or prospective witness.”And National Prosecution Standards section 2-14.5 says: “In no event should a prosecutor make statements prohibited by Standard 2-14.4 or applicable rules of ethical conduct.”
In this case, DA Cruden could have done a quick internet search to verify the validity of his statements, however he chose to act with reckless disregard for the truth and chose to blindly believe the words of the accused perpetrator over the victim.
Just like the other DA’s who have been removed, we believe DA Cruden’s actions reflect poorly on the justice system. Unethical and reckless statements and actions from our prosecutors should not be tolerated. Vulnerable individuals deserve to be protected by our prosecutors.
In this case, DA Cruden could have done a quick internet search to verify the validity of his statements, however he chose to act with reckless disregard for the truth and chose to blindly believe the words of the accused perpetrator over the victim.
Just like the other DA’s who have been removed, we believe DA Cruden’s actions reflect poorly on the justice system. Unethical and reckless statements and actions from our prosecutors should not be tolerated. Vulnerable individuals deserve to be protected by our prosecutors.
.jpg)
How you can help: If you feel that Jeffrey Cruden’s actions have caused a loss in your trust in the justice system’s ability to protect vulnerable citizens, then we urge you to speak out by submitting an affidavit to the Dare County Clerk of the Superior Court stating your concerns. This can be added to the affidavits already filed under NC Gen. Statue 7a-66 to request a removal of DA Cruden from office.
Please notarize and send all affidavits to the following address:Dare County Superior Court Clerk P.O. Box 1849 Manteo, NC 27954
**Also, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Andy Womble would be the judge presiding over this proceeding. However, Jefferey Cruden worked under him for 7 years prior to Cruden taking Womble’s spot as DA when Womble was elected to Superior Court Judge in 2022.
We are asking that he recuse himself on this proceeding to prevent any real or perceived bias due to their close relationship.
Excerpt from Melissa Nicholson’s 7A-66 removal affidavit available on the North Carolina Courts webpage:
105. “By information and belief, I believe that Mr. Cruden decided to assume that Mr. Nicholson was more credible than I am as a witness.
106. If Mr. Cruden had spoken with me and looked over my evidence, I would have been able to provide evidence that would dispute Mr. Cruden’s statements that tend to support Mr. Nicholson’s credibility over mine.
107. I believe my medical records show a history of abuse in our marriage. I have medical records that show a provider claiming that I do “not have a safe place to return to.” This was documented after this provided had personal interactions with Mr. Nicholson.
108. I have evidence that Mr. Nicholson has lied to sheriff deputies when questioned and has repeatedly made untrue statements under oath and in court transcripts. I have documented evidence that Mr. Nicholson made statements in court that are inconsistent with his prior written statements.
109. These documents and witness testimony, if Mr. Cruden had evaluated it, would have allowed him to more accurately determine Mr. Nicholson’s credibility. However, he chose to make public statements about credibility in this case without adequately evaluating the evidence available to him.
110. Despite my reports to DCSO about my history of sexual assaults and abuse, my claims that Mr. Nicholson was aware of how my mental disability affected our intimacy and how he abused that knowledge to take advantage of me sexually; I believe that Mr. Cruden chose to believe Mr. Nicholson’s claim that the encounter in Dare County was consensual.
111. Mr. Cruden refused to look at or consider the evidence that I have that shows that Mr. Nicholson took advantage of his knowledge of my inability to resist or say no when he sexually assaulted me. I have numerous documents and witnesses that can corroborate my repeated attempts to get Mr. Nicholson to discuss and get Mr. Nicholson to comply with needed boundaries with regards to physical intimacy due to my mental disability.
112. I believe that Mr. Cruden chose to believe the self-serving statements of the accused perpetrator, Mr. Christopher Nicholson, because he is a white male in a position of power as a captain in Henrico Fire; rather than consider the case without bias and evaluate it fully for its legal merits.
113. Mr. Cruden’s actions, which violated numerous ethical standards, constitute willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute.
114. For these reasons, I respectfully request that he be removed from office at this time.”
Quotes from Melissa Nicholson’s Affidavit:
“Refusing to take this situation seriously by removing DA Cruden for his deplorable and defamatory statements would set an example of the government conspiring to cover up how actual victims of sexual assault are often treated when they report their assault and will in effect scare other victims from reporting their abuse and assaults. They will fear that they will not be believed and could be publicly discredited by the justice system when they report. It will also hinder future victims from reporting how they were mistreated. Thus, Cruden's behavior is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute.
It is well known that often victims are mistreated and not believed when they report their assaults and abuse, like in the publicized cases of Marie Adler and Taylor Cadle. However, those cases became public only after their abusers were caught. How many other victims are being mistreated like I was and never see justice because the justice system continues to disbelieve victims and claim prosecutorial discretion when in fact they are intentionally, biasedly judging victims, refusing to utilize well known best practice about actual victim behavior and refusing to do any actual investigation into their cases.
That prosecutors can get away with blatantly mistreating and under investigating sexual assault cases based on their biased opinions of the victim by claiming prosecutorial discretion is a fundamental flaw in our justice system.
Continuing to deny the prejudice against sexual assault victims by hiding behind the guise of prosecutorial discretion only continues to allow predators to roam free. Yet we wonder why we have such a problem with sex trafficking in a society that freely looks away when victims find the courage to speak out. Perhaps if Jeffrey Cruden would have looked at the actual evidence in this case instead of claiming biased "issues" that "lesson the credibility of the reporting party" he would have realized that the accused was lying when he made his statements to the police regarding the alleged assault.
According to Jefferey Cruden's statement, being married to your abuser, a lack of physical evidence and delayed reporting are all factors he considers "would lessen the credibility of the reporting party." However best practice standards in handling sexual assault cases and research into the trauma response of victims shows this statement to be biased and incorrect.
To publicly make these incorrect claims about victim behavior unduly influences potential jury members against victims of sexual violence. I have read that studies show that at least 3/4 of sexual assaults are completed by someone the victim knows and is often in a relationship with. Marital rape is illegal in all 50 states and claiming that a victim is less credible because they were married to the victim is just false. The power dynamics within a marriage often make it hard for the victim to speak up about the abuse and delayed reporting on these cases is more common than not.”
It is well known that often victims are mistreated and not believed when they report their assaults and abuse, like in the publicized cases of Marie Adler and Taylor Cadle. However, those cases became public only after their abusers were caught. How many other victims are being mistreated like I was and never see justice because the justice system continues to disbelieve victims and claim prosecutorial discretion when in fact they are intentionally, biasedly judging victims, refusing to utilize well known best practice about actual victim behavior and refusing to do any actual investigation into their cases.
That prosecutors can get away with blatantly mistreating and under investigating sexual assault cases based on their biased opinions of the victim by claiming prosecutorial discretion is a fundamental flaw in our justice system.
Continuing to deny the prejudice against sexual assault victims by hiding behind the guise of prosecutorial discretion only continues to allow predators to roam free. Yet we wonder why we have such a problem with sex trafficking in a society that freely looks away when victims find the courage to speak out. Perhaps if Jeffrey Cruden would have looked at the actual evidence in this case instead of claiming biased "issues" that "lesson the credibility of the reporting party" he would have realized that the accused was lying when he made his statements to the police regarding the alleged assault.
According to Jefferey Cruden's statement, being married to your abuser, a lack of physical evidence and delayed reporting are all factors he considers "would lessen the credibility of the reporting party." However best practice standards in handling sexual assault cases and research into the trauma response of victims shows this statement to be biased and incorrect.
To publicly make these incorrect claims about victim behavior unduly influences potential jury members against victims of sexual violence. I have read that studies show that at least 3/4 of sexual assaults are completed by someone the victim knows and is often in a relationship with. Marital rape is illegal in all 50 states and claiming that a victim is less credible because they were married to the victim is just false. The power dynamics within a marriage often make it hard for the victim to speak up about the abuse and delayed reporting on these cases is more common than not.”
.jpg)