We believe DA Jeffery Cruden violated the North Carolina Rules of Professional Ethics, the National Prosecution Standards and the North Carolina Crime Victim’s Act.

According to the National Prosecution Standards 4th edition:
“2-14.4 Restraints on Information Prior to and during a criminal trial 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. The performance or results of any scientific tests or the refusal of the suspect or accused to take a test; d. Statements concerning the credibility or anticipated testimony of prospective witnesses;”
“2-14.5 Public Responses The prosecutor may make a reasonable and fair reply to comments of defense counsel or others. A public comment made by a prosecutor pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to statements reasonably necessary to mitigate the effect of undue prejudice created by the public statement of another. In no event should a prosecutor make statements prohibited by Standard 2-14.4 or applicable rules of ethical conduct.”
See the full National Prosecution Standards-
DA Cruden Made public statements about the credibility of a witness. He also publicly disclosed statements from the accused. All of which violate the National Prosecution Standards.
The North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct are the ethical rules that lawyers licensed in the state must follow.
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
• “(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”
• “[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:
 + the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:“(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.”
Comments “[6] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose”
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.”
4.4 Respect For Rights Of Third Persons [2] Threats, bullying, harassment, insults, slurs, personal attacks, unfounded personal accusations generally serve no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden others and violate this rule. Conduct that serves no substantial purpose other than to intimidate, humiliate, or embarrass lawyers, litigants, witnesses, or other persons with whom a lawyer interacts while representing a client also violates this rule. See also Rule 3.5(a) (prohibiting conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal) and Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
8.4 Misconduct “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;” “[4] A showing of actual prejudice to the administration of justice is not required to establish a violation of paragraph (d). Rather, it must only be shown that the act had a reasonable likelihood of prejudicing the administration of justice.”
See the full North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct-
We believe that DA Cruden violated these rules by making false statements about a witness with a reckless disregard for the truth that has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjunctive proceeding in the matter.
We believe that DA Cruden also violated the North Carolina Crime Victims Act.
According to the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
§ 15A 830.5. Victim's rights.
(a) A victim of crime shall be treated with dignity and respect by the criminal justice system.
DA Cruden had a responsibility to the victim, Melissa Nicholson, to treat her with dignity and respect. His false public statements about her violated the crime victim’s act by treating her with disrespect and falsely representing her and her case.
See the full North Carolina Crime Victim’s Act-