None of us is perfect in reading comprehension, nor are we mind readers!
The first time you mentioned possible grounds for appeal (276), you did so in the context of Martha's case. But you said as a stand-alone sentence that "It can only be a mistake the judge made." Bluntpoint and I both noted that in the global sense, there are other possible grounds for appeal.
Then at 307 you said "I've not heard or read any lawyer or article say that anything the jury does can be grounds for appeal. How about posting a link to an article that states that." Again, I'm sure your context was just Martha's case, but the statement reads as a broad assertion.
At 313 you said "Not one of them has mentioned a problem with the jury being reasons for appeal; in fact, most of them have outright stated that that is not the case in federal trials." And at 327 you said "I have stated repeatedly that I have HEARD lawyers say that those are the only grounds that can be appealed."
Anyway, again speaking for myself, comments to you were meant to be helpful. Hope you can see why I misunderstood where you were coming from (which was just Martha's case), and thought you were of a mind that it was not possible to appeal a federal case on jury grounds. In fact, suitable grounds for appeal are about the same, whether a case be state or federal. No, I don't have a raft of cites to support that.