Jeopardy would not attach if a defendant bribed a juror, such that it is determined that a verdict of guilt could not be reached. A judge trial is, of course, an easier call. If a prosecutor is bribed by a defendant, it would be very difficult to argue that jeopardy attached at the trial as the fact finding process was corrupted ab initio. There would be review to determine if the prosecutor still reasonably prosecuted the case, and if so, a defendant (although his hands are dirty from the bribe) might assert that a subsequent prosecution may be barred, or perhaps modified on the grounds of collateral estoppel. If certain facts were established legitimately (without a taint from the bribe), then those issues may be precluded from consideration at a subsequent trial. Of course, the defendant in any case must stand trial for the felony bribe.

I didn't address your other question about the ruling of the 7th Circuit. It is true as you stated earlier that decisions from US Courts of Appeal are limited to that specific circuit as well as the district courts it encompasses. Circuit court opinions are considered as non-binding outside the jurisdiction, but they are often considered as guiding nonetheless. Here the 7th Circuit's opinion, I believe, is consistent with most of the views held by the federal judiciary.