The "Can't Say No" case serves as a powerful reminder of the need for empathy, understanding, and informed action in the face of coercive control. By working together, we can create a safer, more just, and more compassionate society for all.
The court recognized that coercive control is a critical factor in many cases of intimate partner violence and that it can render victims unable to escape or resist their abusers. The ruling established that, in cases where a defendant claims to have acted in self-defense or under duress due to coercive control, expert testimony on the dynamics of coercive control is admissible and relevant.
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.
Casey Calvert was a 37-year-old woman who had been married to her husband, Russell Calvert, for over a decade. During their marriage, Casey claimed that Russell had subjected her to a pattern of coercive control, including emotional manipulation, financial abuse, and physical violence. Despite her allegations, Casey had never previously reported the abuse to authorities or sought a restraining order.
