that the case be remanded to the District Court with instructions to determine with clarity whether the defendant lacked the mental capacity to represent himself at trial. Appellant Duane McKinney challenges his conviction on four counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, two counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and three counts of first degree theft in violation of D.C.Code § 22-3212(a). During trial, McKinney represented himself, with appointed counsel on standby. On April 17, 2008, the jury returned its verdict against McKinney. On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 2387-88, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008) (<HOLDING>). On July 1, 2008, McKinney, through counsel,
holding that defense counsel need only consult and be governed by his clients wishes when the question arises as to whether or not a plea of guilty should be entered trial by jury waived or whether the defendant should take the witness stand in his own defense holding that no mental health expert is competent to express an opinion about whether a particular set of facts constitutes a mitigating circumstance because that would invade the province of the judge and jury holding that a trial court errs by failing to limit the definitions of the culpable mental states as they relate to the conduct elements involved in the particular offense holding that the con stitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendants mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial