Почти. За одним исключением -- prosecutors may appeal purely legal determinations which would require no further fact-finding.

well, not as to guilt-innocence issues.

The prosecution CAN appeal sentencing issues or suppression issues, for example. But in CA and NY (and I would expect in vast majority of the other states), once there is a "not guilty" finding by the trier of fact, no further appeals by prosecution are permitted.

What about jury tampering?

jury tampering is a separate charge, as far as I know. But the verdict itself cannot be touched.

Or more generally, what if the trier of fact is "messed up", bribery, jury tampering, etc.?

not in California. All of these are separate charges. But on the main charge, the Double Jeopardy protection still applies.

§ 1161. Direction for reconsideration of verdict; return of same verdict; entry; informal verdict

IN WHAT CASES COURT MAY DIRECT A RECONSIDERATION OF THE VERDICT. When there is a verdict of conviction, in which it appears to the Court that the jury have mistaken the law, the Court may explain the reason for that opinion and direct the jury to reconsider their verdict, and if, after the reconsideration, they return the same verdict, it must be entered; but when there is a verdict of acquittal, the Court cannot require the jury to reconsider it. If the jury render a verdict which is neither general nor special, the Court may direct them to reconsider it, and it cannot be recorded until it is rendered in some form from which it can be clearly understood that the intent of the jury is either to render a general verdict or to find the facts specially and to leave the judgment to the Court.

"We start with the obvious premise that under the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution (U.S.Const., 5th Amend.), defendant cannot be retried on the charge of which he was acquitted, count two. "The fundamental nature of this rule [barring retrial after acquittal] is manifested by its explicit extension to situations where an acquittal is 'based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.' " (Sanabria v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 54, 64, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2178, 57 L.Ed.2d 43.)" (People v. Romero (1982) 183 Cal.Rptr. 663.)

Яснее не скажешь.

Это не совсем о том. Вопрос был об аппелляциях. Посмотрите какую-нибудь из статей внизу.

Вопрос о double jeopardy в применении к штатам еще достаточно свеж. Только Уорреновский Суд распространил double jeopardy на штаты. И сейчас в академии идет некоторый пересмотр того, насколько criminal procedure штата определяется федеральными законами.

1. Copyright (c) 2001 Cornell Law Review Cornell Law Review, July, 2001, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 1131, 15207 words, NOTE: DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ACQUITTAL APPEALS, AND THE LAW-FACT DISTINCTION, Forrest G. Alogna+

2. Copyright (c) 1999 Hastings College of the Law Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Fall, 1999, 23 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 109, 5422 words, ARTICLE: Case Update: German CompuServe Director Acquitted on Appeal, By Lothar Determann*

3. Copyright (c) 1998 The Trustee of Indiana University Indiana Law Review, 1998, 31 Ind. L. Rev. 353, 19261 words, ARTICLE: The Justice System in Jeopardy: The Prohibition on Government Appeals of Acquittals, Joshua Steinglass *

4. Copyright (c) 1989 University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, SPRING & SUMMER, 1989, 22 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 831, 30773 words, 'TRUTH IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE' SERIES OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY: DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND GOVERNMENT APPEALS OF ACQUITTALS, Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy

spasibo za ssylky, seichas pochitaem.

A chto kasaetsya kontrolya federal'nymi sudami state criminal procedure, that's a classic habeas question - i.e., can a conviction be reversed by a lower federal court merely because the state courts misapplied federal constitutional law. I think there was a SCOTUS decision on that issue a few years back, which fixes the standard at something like "clearly erroneous."

well, the exception you're referring to applies in cases, for example, where there was a guilty verdict by a jury, which was then suspended by a court order. A reversal of the trial court's suspection order would simply mean reinstatement of the prior verdict, so the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended.

But if you have a direct "not guilty" finding by a trier of fact in a criminal matter, that, in and of itself, cannot be appealed.