presumption of innocence and more generally the last two paragraphs of the differentiating section  
 These two paragraphs are unworthy of wikipedia. They are not only biased (I am inclined to say arrogant), but also wrong, unfounded and even worse for wikipedia without any conclusive citations.....  

 Just to give an editor two hints... Just facts: 

 1. in dubio pro reo is latin. It is latin because it is a roman principle of law. Naturally as civil law is based on Roman law it is an integral part of every civil law system. But in dubio pro reo includes the presumption of innocence. I don't know where the ridiculous assumption comes from that there is no equivalent of presumption of innocence in civil law. Just delete the paragraph about it and add a sentence that this is myth.... 

 2. Juries: It is true that Germany for example has abolished juries in 1924 because the judgements were deemed to be too arbitrary and that it only uses lay judges in important cases. However a cursory look at a normal trial in France would make it absolutely clear that the people sitting there right to the judge in many cases are a jury.... The whole discussion in that paragraph seems to be coocked up by a first year law student who has heared something and written his prejudice down. 

 3. Hearsay or broader exclusion of evidence. You cannot say that civil law systems as a whole don't have functional equivalents to hearsay rules. Of course they are not realy needed in a non-jury trial but there are ample possibilties in which evidence will be excluded. I'd delete that completely. Or you going to have to name every civil-law country that has some hearsay rules...  

 4. The whole thing is written as if civil law only makes sense when contrasted to common law. Even for the English-language hawks on wikipedia this seems to be a bit too cheeky..... 3000 years!!! of development... There are provisions in the German BGB that are direct translations from the roman twelve tables for god's sake...... 

 All in all I am not a proper editor for such an article, but this article needs working on.... why don't you ask an American professor of international law that you know to rewrite the article.... That would also guarantee that the result can be accepted by both sides.. (sounds ridiculous I know but reading that article you think that wikipedia is not a objective encyclopedia but a tool of people from North America and England to narrowmindedly judge about the world from their point of view.....)