It is rarely used because of a desire to control costs, but as you said, any time a crime violates both state and federal law, both can prosecute. (Such as robbing an FDIC insured bank, violating both state and federal law)
Now, up until the early nineties it WAS considered de facto double jeopardy if one jurisdiction totally acquitted the defendent and the evidence at trial indicated that it was impossible for the defendent to have committed the crime. That all changed with the trial of the four LAPD officers accused of beating Rodney King. They were acquitted in state court on charges of assault. The meant that the jury said that there was no assault.
However, the feds turned around and charged them under 18 USC 242 for violation of civil rights. An assault was instrumental and necssary as the tool used in that charge, and the state jury had ruled there was no assault....but out of fear of further civil unrest in South Central LA they were railroaded and sent to prison.
When the Supreme Court refused to hear that case, our protections as citizens were made a bit weaker. The resounding message from that case was, "Politics will trump the Constitution when necessary."
More information about formatting options