Trial by jury evidance question?

You don't "force" an appeal. A person convicted of a crime has a right to appeal in every state, although there are time limits upon when a notice of appeal must be filed. I think what you may be asking is whether there are any grounds upon which an appeal might be based.

The erroneous exclusion of evidence can be a ground for appeal if admission of the evidence could have led to a different verdict. However, from your statement it appears that the judge did not exclude the evidence: your lawyer decided not to offer it in evidence. In such a case the judge cannot be said to have made an error.

Maybe you are claiming that your attorney erred in not asking that the evidence be admitted. Egregious errors by defense attorneys can be a basis for attacking a judgment if those errors would have affected the judgment, because that is a denial of the constitutional right to effective counsel. The procedures for raising ineffective assistance of counsel vary between the states.

Newly discovered evidence can be a basis for a later challenge to a judgment, but usually only if it proves innocence. However, if the evidence was available at the time of trial it is NOT newly discovered.

If you have some other question, you are going to have to state it more clearly.

It was disallowed so stop calling it evidence. It was never entered into the record as evidence and no, you cannot "try again". In fact, it is not grounds for an appeal because it is NOT "new evidence". It is not even evidence. It was presented and disallowed. Give it up. Go to jail. Do not collect $200.

An appeal is not a trial and the facts, whatever they are, are not a part of it.