.jpg)
7A-66 Removal affidavit submitted by Melissa Nicholson
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICECOUNTY OF DARE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Affidavit of MELISSA NICHOLSON regarding 7A-66 Removal of District Attorneys.
Regarding DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFREY CRUDEN Affidavit
Affidavit of MELISSA NICHOLSON regarding 7A-66 Removal of District Attorneys.
Regarding DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFREY CRUDEN Affidavit
I, Melissa Nicholson, request a hearing to remove District Attorney Jeffrey Cruden from office pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 7A-66 for the following reasons:1. Willful misconduct in office2. Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute.
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
1. I, Melissa Nicholson, am a United States Citizen and resident of Powhatan County, VIRGINIA. 2. Jeffrey Cruden is a citizen and resident of Dare County, North Carolina, serves as the District Attorney for North Carolina’s 1st Prosecutorial District.3. Jurisdiction in this matter is proper pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 7A-66.4. The Court of Dare County is the proper venue for this action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 7A-66.
Factual Allegations
5. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and rape and sexual assault by multiple perpetrators.
6. In 1996 I had my left kidney removed. I was told by one of my medical providers that it was most likely damaged as a result of my sexual abuse as a child.
7. My sexual abuse as a child was reported to Child Protective Services and I went through mandatory counseling as required by CPS.
8. I married Christopher Nicholson in August of 2001, and he was aware I had a history of childhood sexual abuse at the time of our marriage.
9. By the end of 2015, I started to have symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression as a result of being triggered by my husband, Mr. Christopher Nicholson. These mental health conditions resulted from my sexual assaults and abuse.
10. I went for mental health treatment in the summer of 2018 due to being triggered by Mr. Nicholson when he would not respect my boundaries regarding intimacy and continued to have nonconsensual sexual encounters with me.
11. As a condition of discharged from this mental health treatment facility, Mr. Nicholson and I moved into separate bedrooms in marital home in the summer of 2018. This move to a separate bedroom was due to my mental health condition causing an inability to resist or say no during sexual contact, making intimacy with me unsafe. An agreement of no sexual contact was also discussed and agreed to between Mr. Nicholson and me during discharge planning.
12. Mr. Nicholson continued to have non-consensual sexual encounters with me after returning from treatment in 2018 despite my repeated requests for him to stop.
13. Mr. Nicholson’s sexual abuse and refusal to follow clearly established boundaries led to an exacerbation of mental health symptoms.
14. I sought further mental health treatment at this time to escape the sexual abuse by my husband, Mr. Nicholson.
15. I was sexually assaulted by Mr. Nicholson while on vacation in Dare County, North Carolina, in 2020.
16. The sexual assaults by Mr. Nicholson ultimately led me to seek to end my abusive marriage.
17. I left my ex-husband with the help of Powhatan County Social Services due to domestic violence at the end of 2020.
18. I obtained an emergency protective order immediately after leaving the marital home. The emergency protective order contained reports of my allegations of sexual assaults by Mr. Nicholson. (See Exhibit A, a copy of the Emergency protective order I filled.)
19. In January 2021, I reported this outer banks sexual assault to the Dare County Sheriff's Office.
20. I divulged my history of prior childhood sexual abuse, sexual assaults and my associated mental health conditions when initially reporting the assault to Donnie Varnell of the Dare County Sheriff’s Office.
21. In Spring of 2021 the detective assigned to my case, Donnie Varnell, told me that since I did not “say no” during the assault, there was nothing that the Sheriff's Office could do and the DA could not prosecute the case.
22. I explained to detective Varnell that I was unable to say no due to being held down and due to a history of mental health issues that prevented me from effectively resisting or saying no during the assault.
23. I did not follow up with the detective again until four years later.
24. During those four years, I underwent extensive therapy and grew stronger and healthier since I was out of that abusive environment.
25. During those four years, I eventually became involved in an organization to support survivors of sexual and domestic violence in Virginia.
26. This led me to research the laws in North Carolina. I discovered that I had evidence from documents and witnesses such as court transcripts, emails, mental health and medical providers and my medical records to prove that Mr. Nicholson committed second degree forcible sexual offense, according to North Carolina law; by knowing that I had mental health conditions that prevented me from saying no or resisting during the encounter. I believed that I now had sufficient evidence for this case since Mr. Nicholson had already admitted under oath that we had engaged in the sex acts I described. (See Exhibit B, a copy of one of the many medical records I offered to share with Mr. Cruden. This one showing that Mr. Nicholson knew about my mental health issues that caused me to get repeatedly assaulted. Exhibit C , a copy of another record that I offered to share with Mr. Cruden. This one showing one example of Mr. Nicholson and I discussing how my mental health diagnosis affected our intimacy due to the fact that I get triggered during sex. These are just two of the many documents I had prepared to share with Mr. Cruden regarding my case.)
27. I emailed detective Donnie Varnell. I asked to speak with the District Attorney and share this new evidence and discuss my case with regards to my mental disability.
28. I was told that Mr. Cruden was not able to prosecute due to “lack of evidence”.
29. Mr. Cruden refused to speak with me.
30. Mr. Cruden refused to review my new evidence.
31. Mr. Cruden did not speak with my mental health providers or other witnesses I had for him to speak with.
32. All of my attempts to communicate with Mr. Cruden were documented.
33. I began to advocate for myself and for other victims of sexual assault.
34. My friends, family, and supporters were upset that Mr. Cruden would not even look at my evidence or talk with me.
35. My supporters and I organized and conducted a peaceful protest in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina to advocate for victims of sexual assault on August 9, 2025.
36. My supporters and I dispersed flyers in the area by handout and mail. (See Exhibit D, copy of the flyer sent out by me and my supporters.)
37. The flyers shared concerns about valid sexual assaults not being prosecuted.
38. The flyers referenced the National Department of Justice's recent recommendations to prosecutors with guidelines for prosecuting sexual assault cases. (See Exhibit E)
39. The flyers referenced my case anonymously, using the alias "Survivor X" for my safety yet had detailed information regarding my specific case including emails between me and Detective Varnell.
40. Numerous individuals who read the flyer knew that it referenced me and my specific case.
41. My supporters and I were publicly advocating for sexual assault victims and requesting better prosecutorial oversight to ensure that prosecutors follow best practices for prosecuting sex crimes.
42. The flyers we sent out stated that it is best practice for prosecutors to speak with both the victim and the perpetrator (based on the DOJ framework), but to my knowledge, neither the DCSO or Mr. Cruden had spoken to Mr. Nicholson prior to deciding to dismiss the case in May of 2025. Mr. Cruden never spoke to me either.
43. In August 2025, after the peaceful protest and the flyers were sent out, Mr. Cruden started publicly defaming me.
44. On August 26, 2025 Mr. Cruden wrote and published a defamatory statement regarding me via government email to his assistant, Andrea Powell with instructions for her to distribute this statement via government email to individual members of the public on Mr. Cruden’s behalf. (See Exhibits F, G and H, a copy of the defamatory emails that were sent out by or on behalf of Mr. Cruden.)
45. These individuals that received these emails were aware that these statements referred to me.
46. Teresa Pullin was one of the women who received an email with Jeffrey Cruden’s response.
47. Teresa Pullin was at the August 9th 2025 protest with me and helped send out the flyers and was aware that Mr. Cruden’s statements were about me and my case.
48. Deb Jackson was another woman who received an email with a statement regarding me and my case. Deb Jackson attends church with me and was aware that Jeffrey Cruden was talking about me and my case in his email response to her. She forwarded me the email that Cruden’s office sent to her because she knew that it was about me.
49. Per the North Carolina § 132-1. "Public records" are defined as " all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions.”
50. Thus, since DA Cruden had these statements sent out to public citizens via government email, the statements in these emails are all FOIAable public information.
51. Upon information and belief, based on the information that I have, I also believe Mr. Cruden was sharing these defamatory statements with the public verbally.
52. I believe that Mr. Cruden's defamatory statements were sent for personal and political reasons to promote his upcoming re-election.
53. The following is the written statement distributed by Mr. Cruden via government email:
“I appreciate the email because contrary to the “anonymous” letter that was distributed, I take my obligation to protect the community where I live and work from sexual predators very seriously. I was a founding member of a Special Victims Unit that prosecuted sexual assault and abuse cases for years, many of those with evidence that my fellow prosecutors would not have prosecuted. There are literally hundreds of survivors of sexual assaults that would speak very highly of my work in those cases. Contrary to the “anonymous” letter’s representations, her case was investigated very thoroughly by the Dare County’s Sherriff’s Office (DCSO). It was the decision of the DCSO that there was insufficient evidence to support charging the suspect, I reviewed their work and agreed with their conclusion. There are often obstacles to prosecutions for alleged sexual assaults, such as a lack of physical evidence, delayed reporting and other “issues” that would lessen the credibility of the reporting party. Some of those issues were that the alleged suspect and the complainant were husband and wife at the time of the alleged offense, and the allegations only came about after their divorce and the alleged suspect received full custody of their children. It was also only after attempts by the complainant to regain custody failed, did the allegations of sexual assault by her now ex-husband surface. Her ex-husband was interviewed, contrary to the allegations, and he categorically denies the allegation and is occupying his time trying to raise their children. At the same time the Dare County Sherriff’s Office was reviewing this allegation, the Commonwealth of Virginia Attorney’s Office was reviewing another allegation made by the complainant in Virginia. That allegation was also declined for prosecution, I can only imagine the “anonymous” letter campaign that is going on there too. The true victims here are the actual victims of sexual assault, their voices are diminished every time an unsubstantiated allegation gets made, especially ones like this that draw attention. My fear is that in the next sexual assault case my office takes to trial, and we try a lot of them, the victim will not be believed because of the doubt created by this “anonymous” letter. Please continue to support law enforcement’s and my office’s attempts to prosecute sex offenders, all too often they stand alone with no one to support them. Very Respectfully,Jeff CrudenDistrict Attorney”
54. From the information that I have, including a copy of the original Dare County police report from 2021, I do not believe that Mr. Nicholson was interviewed as part of the Dare County Sherriff’s Office sexual assault investigation by either Mr. Cruden or Dare County Sherriff’s Office. And I believe he was only contacted just prior to Mr. Cruden making his defamatory statements in August of 2025.
55. Upon information and belief, and per information I obtained from a FOIA request of Powhatan County Sheriff Office, a “CPL Crane” of the Powhatan County Sheriff’s Office spoke with Mr. Nicholson in August 2025. This appears to have been just prior to Mr. Cruden sending out defamatory statements about me and my case.
56. From the information I received in this FOIA request, I believe that it was from this encounter with the officer from Powhatan County in August of 2025 that Mr. Cruden got the statements from Mr. Nicholson that Mr. Cruden shared in his defamatory email he sent out publicly.
57. Mr. Cruden falsely claimed in his public statement that my allegations of sexual assault by Mr. Nicholson only came after our divorce and my attempts to regain custody failed.
58. Mr. Cruden did not verify the statements made by my abuser, Mr. Nicholson, using the “means at hand” before publishing these statements as fact to the public.
59. Mr. Cruden's statements falsely accused me of filing a false police report.
60. Mr. Cruden's statements implied that I was not an “actual victim” of sexual assault.
61. Mr. Cruden's statements claimed that my speaking out harms other actual victims of sexual assault (emphasis added).
62. Mr. Cruden's statements subjected me to contempt and disgrace.
63. Upon information and belief, these statements were intended to publicly diminish my credibility as a reporting witness.
64. The statements tended to harm my reputation as a sexual assault survivor and advocate.
65. Prior to reading Mr. Cruden's defamatory statements, I had been in remission from PTSD, depression, and anxiety symptoms for years since leaving my abusive husband.
66. Immediately after reading defendant Cruden's defamatory statements, I began having symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
67. My recurrence of PTSD, anxiety, and depression significantly affected my quality of life.
68. Mr. Cruden discriminated against me as a person with a disability by refusing to investigate or consider my case as being a result of my disability prior to sending out public emails that I believe were intended to discredit me as a victim of a crime.
69. When Mr. Cruden published the defamatory statements, Mr. Cruden had refused to look at the evidence or speak with my witnesses or my mental health providers that could help corroborate my story and support my case.
70. Although district attorneys have prosecutorial discretion, they are not allowed to use that discretion to discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
71. By refusing to consider evidence that he knew or should have known would have allowed him to prosecute this case with regards to my disability, I believe that he violated the N.C. Persons with Disabilities Act as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
72. I reached out to the North Carolina Attorney General, the Governor, and the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys about my concerns regarding Mr. Cruden's defamation, unethical behavior, and discrimination with regard to my disability.
73. Upon information and belief, none of the officials to whom I reported Mr. Cruden's conduct took action to report him.
74. Mr. Cruden publicly made false statements of fact concerning me, a victim of a crime.
75. Mr. Cruden’s statements falsely claim that my case was “investigated very thoroughly” despite Mr. Cruden’s refusal to evaluate all of the evidence or speak with witnesses, including me.
76. Mr. Cruden’s statement falsely claims in a public email that delayed reporting diminishes the credibility of the reporting party and I believe uses this false claim to try to discredit me.
77. Studies of trauma responses show that delayed reporting is a common occurrence after a sexual assault. Even the DOJ’s framework (Exhibit E) says that “a victim may report right away or may wait to report for a day or a decade.” It also says: “victims of domestic violence and sexual assault often engage in a variety of counterintuitive conduct during an assault or in its aftermath. Some of it may be intentional; some of it may be an involuntary trauma response. As an example of the former, victims may delay disclosure or keep an assault a secret out of (misplaced) shame or embarrassment or because they fear retaliation or not being believed. In the case of domestic violence, they may not want their families or social circles to know what they have endured, or they may initially lie because they fear that telling the truth will put them in greater danger. In the case of sexual assault, they may have drunk alcohol or initially flirted with the perpetrator. While neither of these actions vitiates the perpetrator’s guilt or serves as a reason for declination, such conduct can cause victims to blame themselves and think that we will blame them, too. In addition, victims may not fight back during an assault because the perpetrator is stronger or bigger, has threatened the well-being of their children, has access to a weapon, has been violent in the past, or they fear that the perpetrator will hurt them even more if they resist. These explanations are logical, and victims are often able to articulate them to a jury when asked.”
78. Mr. Cruden’s public statements increase victim blaming and victim shaming attitudes in the community instead of promoting and providing actual evidenced based education about traumatic responses to sexual assaults. These types of statements misinform potential jury pools and interfere with the administration of justice.
79. Mr. Cruden made the statements with actual malice.
80. Mr. Cruden either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth which constitutes malice.
81. According to North Carolina Case law "Actual malice may be found in a reckless disregard for the truth and may be proven by a showing that the defamatory statement was made in bad faith, without probable cause or without checking for truth by the means at hand." (See Exhibit K)
82. And According to Ward v Turcotte, “[Qualified privilege] relates more particularly to private interests; and comprehends communications made in good faith, without actual malice, with reasonable or probable grounds for believing them to be true, on a subject matter in which the author of the communication has an interest, or in respect to which he has a duty, public, personal, or private, either legal, judicial, political, moral, or social made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty.”
83. In re Cline removal proceedings, statements made with malice were not protected and DA Cline was ultimately removed for making false public statements.
84. Mr. Cruden made the statements in bad faith, without probable cause and without checking for truth by the means at hand. Mr. Cruden made the statements despite an ethical obligation to refrain from making public comments about witness credibility.
85. Mr. Cruden made the statement, despite the fact that victim credibility had no bearing on this case if prosecuted in light of my mental disability, since Mr. Nicholson already admitted to engaging in the sex acts with me. (See Exhibit I, showing N.C.P.I.—Criminal 207.65A Second-degree Forcible Sexual Offense.)
86. Since consent is not an element of this crime when prosecuted with regard to my mental disability, witness credibility only comes into play in this type of case when determining if in fact, the sex acts took place; however, Mr. Nicholson admitted under oath that the encounter took place. Thus Mr. Cruden had no probable cause or valid reason to publicly discredit me in the first place.
87. Mr. Cruden made these statements without verifying the facts despite having the means at hand to do so.
88. Mr. Cruden misused his authority as a District Attorney by utilizing his assistant to send out false and defamatory statements about me publicly via email.
89. Mr. Cruden’s statements falsely claimed that my allegations of sexual assault by Mr. Nicholson only came after our divorce and my attempts to regain custody failed.
90. My divorce was finalized on August 4, 2022 and the final custody hearing was on November 15th, 2023. This information was available online to the public. Mr. Cruden claimed that I only reported allegations of sexual assault by my now ex-husband after these two events. However, a quick look at the filing date of the reported sexual assault to Dare County Sherriff’s Office can disprove this allegation. I reported the Outer Banks sexual assault to Dare County Sherriff’s Office in January 2021 and reported Mr. Nicholson’s sexual assaults in my emergency protective order in 2020. (See Exhibit J, showing copies of screenshots of the public online Virginia Court Case Information page showing case # CL21000284-00. This shows the date of my divorce as well as the date of the last custody hearing.)
91. According to the National Prosecution Standards 4th edition: 2-14.4 Restraints on Information: “the prosecutor should not make any public, extrajudicial statement that has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding. In particular, from the commencement of a criminal investigation until the conclusion of trial, 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.”b. Admissions, confessions, or the contents of a statement or alibi attributable to a suspect or accused person;c. c. The performance or results of any scientific tests or the refusal of the suspect or accused to take a test; d. d. Statements concerning the credibility or anticipated testimony of prospective witnesses;
92. Mr. Cruden’s statements were in violation of the National Prosecution Standards as well as rule 3.6 of the North Carolina Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct. His email contains statements from the accused, statements about my credibility as a witness, and comments about my character as a witness.
93. The statements caused harm to me and brings the office of district attorney into disrepute. Making defamatory statements via government email puts the state and his office in a position for potential lawsuits. His false statements about a victim of sexual assault brings the office into disrepute by causing a decrease in public trust in the justice system.
94. I believe that Mr. Cruden’s actions in this case; including refusing to consider my case with regard to my disability by refusing to review relevant evidence, speak with me or other witnesses and his public statements about me and this case constitute willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
95. Mr. Cruden owed a duty of care to me as a reporting witness and victim of a crime.
96. This duty required Mr. Cruden to act reasonably and in accordance with prosecutorial standards and ethical obligations including the North Carolina Crime Victim’s Act which calls for victims to be treated with dignity and respect..
97. Mr. Cruden’s actions and statements breached that duty.
98. Mr. Cruden refused to investigate my sexual assault case with regards to my mental disability despite my provision of new evidence.
99. Mr. Cruden refused to speak with me or review my evidence. (See Exhibit D, showing the emails I sent to Dare County Sherriff’s Office in 2025 where I was attempting to speak with Mr. Cruden and show Mr. Cruden the relevant evidence with regards to my sexual assault case. These are included in the flyer)
100. Mr. Cruden did not to speak with my mental health providers.
101. Mr. Cruden acted outside of his scope of official authority by publicly discrediting a witness.
102. Mr. Cruden publicly discredited a victim of a crime, when victim credibility was not even a factor due to the evidence available in the case.
103. Prosecutors are prohibited from making public extrajudicial statements about witness credibility.
104. Victim credibility had no bearing on my case if prosecuted in light of my mental disability, since my ex-husband, Mr. Nicholson, already admitted to engaging in the sex acts with me.
105. DA Cruden made the statements despite an ethical obligation to refrain from making public comments about witness credibility.
106. Mr. Cruden’s role as prosecutor necessarily involves interacting with complainants and assessing evidence.
107. Mr. Cruden failed to exercise reasonable professional care.
108. Mr. Cruden's statements violated Rule 3.6(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits lawyers from making extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
109. Mr. Cruden's statements violated N.C. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 3.8, which requires prosecutors to refrain from making extrajudicial statements that heighten public condemnation and to exercise reasonable care to prevent improper statements by assistants.
110. Mr. Cruden's statements violated the National Prosecution Standards, which prohibit prosecutors from making public extrajudicial statements about the character, credibility, or reputation of a witness.
111. Mr. Cruden declined to prosecute citing "lack of evidence" without reviewing the evidence I offered.
112. Mr. Cruden made public statements about my case and credibility without first reviewing available evidence or verifying facts.
113. Mr. Cruden failed to verify easily verifiable facts, such as the timing of my divorce and custody proceedings, before publishing his statements as truth.
114. Mr. Cruden’s conduct fell below the standard of care for a reasonable prosecutor in similar circumstances.
115. Mr. Cruden violated professional standards including N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(a), Rule 3.8(f), Rule 4.4(a), Rule 8.2(a), Rule 8.4(c), and Rule 8.4(d) and the National Prosecution Standards.
116. I was on vacation with my family in the Outer Banks at the time of the assault.
117. Visitors of the Outer Banks, North Carolina who are sexually assaulted deserve to be treated with dignity and respect when they report their assaults.
118. By information and belief, I believe that Mr. Cruden decided to assume that Mr. Nicholson was more credible than I am as a witness.
119. 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.
120. 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.
121. 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.
122. 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.
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. 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.
130. 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.
131. According to Jeffrey 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.
132. 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.
133. Having reviewed the previous removal proceedings where DA Spivey was removed for one instance of making derogatory statements off duty in a bar and DA Newman was removed after violating the N. C. Crime Victim’s Act and mishandling sexual assault cases. DA Cline was removed for sharing false statements about a sitting judge. I firmly believe that this case also constitutes meeting the necessary requirements for removing DA Jeffrey Cruden via 7A-66. His actions in making false statements and accusations about a witness are prejudicial to the administration of justice and he acted willfully in engaging his office staff in the dissemination of these prejudicial and false statements.
134. For these reasons, I respectfully request that he be removed from office at this time.
