The "Can't Say No" case is a landmark ruling that sheds light on the pervasive and damaging effects of coercive control. By recognizing the relevance of expert testimony on coercive control, the court has opened the door for more nuanced and informed approaches to addressing intimate partner violence.
The case became widely known as the "Can't Say No" case due to the psychological testimony presented during the appeal. A psychologist who evaluated Casey testified that, due to the prolonged exposure to coercive control, Casey had developed a condition known as "learned helplessness," which rendered her incapable of saying "no" to her abuser.
On October 29, 2016, Casey and Russell engaged in a heated argument, which culminated in Russell's death. Casey claimed that she had acted in self-defense, while prosecutors argued that she had intentionally murdered her husband.
Casey appealed the verdict, arguing that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the impact of coercive control on her actions. In a landmark ruling, the California Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court had erred in not allowing expert testimony on the effects of coercive control.
The "Can't Say No" case has significant implications for the way courts, policymakers, and social service providers approach cases of intimate partner violence, particularly those involving coercive control.
