This case presents exceptionally important questions relating to the principle of party presentation and the extent to which federal courts of appeals may affirm criminal convictions based on factual and/or legal arguments that were not presented by the government. In addition, this case presents the unsettled question of whether a criminal defendant-appellant must "establish the actual partiality of the jury that convicted him," SO.38, in order to secure a reversal where the district court excluded, as a group, all prospective jurors who candidly admitted that they did not fully agree with then-existing criminal drug laws.

Whether a federal appellate court may affirm a criminal conviction based on alternative legal theories not presented by the government or raised at trial, and whether wholesale jury exclusion based on policy disagreements requires a showing of actual jury partiality