(1) In a proceeding for removal of an elected district attorney (DA) from office, the trial court did not err by denying the DA’s motion to continue where the statute, G.S. 7A-66, mandated that the matter be heard within 30 days. (2) In the absence of a statutory or rule-based provision for discovery in proceedings under the statute, the DA did not have a right to discovery. (3) Where the trial court put the burden of proof in the removal proceeding on the party who had initiated the action by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, no error occurred. (4) The court held that the trial court’s rulings in the removal proceeding did not violate the DA’s right to due process, noting that the DA had no right to discovery and that the trial court properly allocated the burden of proof. (5) The standard in the relevant provision of the removal statute of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute is not unconstitutionally vague. (6) No violation of the prosecutor’s First Amendment free speech rights occurred where the DA’s removal was based on statements she made about a judge. The statements were made with actual malice and thus were not protected speech by the First Amendment. (7) Qualified immunity does not insulate the DA from removal based on statements made with actual malice. (8) Where the matter was heard without a jury, it is presumed that the trial court considered only admissible evidence, and the trial court did not err in admitting lay testimony.