Whether the trial court violated Sayed's constitutional right to remain silent and reversibly erred when it allowed the government to question a DOC investigator about Sayed's post-arrest silence because Sayed's post-arrest silence had no evidentiary value other than to imply guilt based on Sayed exercising his constitutional right to remain silent?

Whether the trial court violated Sayed's due process right to have the government prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reversibly erred when it failed to—sua sponte—instruct the jury on self-defense because the evidence at trial unequivocally provided more than a scintilla of evidence establishing that Sayed acted in self-defense?

Whether the trial court violated Sayed's due process rights, abused its discretion, and reversibly erred when it failed to order a competency evaluation for Sayed because substantial evidence was presented that demonstrated that (1) Sayed may not have understood the nature and course of the proceedings and (2) Sayed could not cooperate with defense counsel?

Whether the trial court violated Sayed's constitutional right to remain silent by allowing the investigator to comment on Sayed's post-arrest silence