When empaneling a jury for a federal marijuana prosecution in a state where marijuana is legal, must the voir dire be more keenly focused on whether any such views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When empaneling a jury for a federal marijuana prosecution in a state where marijuana is legal, does a voir dire inquiry focusing on whether the potential jurors could put their views about the regulation of marijuana out of their minds satisfy constitutional demands, or, instead, must the voir dire be more keenly focused on whether any such views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors in accordance with their instructions and their oath? 2. Isa person who is “trying to get employed in the cannabis industry” in a state where marijuana is legal automatically disqualified from serving on a jury for a federal marijuana prosecution? 3. If the district court dismissed potential jurors for cause based on their responses to voir dire questions about their attitudes toward marijuana regulation, without establishing the requisite degree of impairment to the performance of their duties, has the defendant suffered cognizable harm? 2