The legal system in the United States is about as corrupt as a legal system can be. I don't mean that people are constantly being paid off although I am sure that happens as often in the United States as it happens anywhere else. In the United States and in other nations there are networks of connected people that influence the outcome of the legal system of their nation.
It could be something as simple as a defense attorney talking a defendant into pleading guilty because the defense attorney does not want to take the time to go to trial or does not want to spend time that will be not be paid for defending a client that the attorney believes is probably guilty.
Many people, including attorneys, believe that if a person is arrested by the police they are guilty regardless of the legal “presumption of innocence”.
Quite often cops will say something like “not getting an arrest or a conviction does not mean we don't know who did it, it means we couldn't prove it”. This indicates a publicly declared corruption of the ideals of the law enforcement portion of our legal system. Instead of a presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law many law enforcement officers are declaring a presumption of guilt exists which is a corruption of the US legal system.
Currently a person is arrested and if that person does not plead guilty a trial is scheduled, typically in front of a jury.
Why does the jury have to be present at the trial? The US constitution promises a trial by jury and not a trial in front of a jury.
Judges and attorneys preform in front of juries. Juries do not decide verdicts based on facts or evidence they decide verdicts based on presentation and performance skills.
A trial could happen in front of a judge without a jury present.
Once concluded a jury could be selected and the trial transcripts given to them and also read to them, preferably by a computer without any vocal bias. Before the jury even sees the evidence any appeals based on a judges ruling on evidence could be completed. All statements that are not appropriate witness statements could be removed from the transcript. The jury verdict would be decided on the final evidence presented alone.
No deals. Every arrest results in a trial by jury. The amount of time the jury is in session could be minimized. A representative of the judge could be available to answer jury questions and provide anything a jury needs or wants.
Juries should be selected from outside of the community where the crime occurred. If a crime has received national attention a jury could be selected from a co-operating international partner nation. Since the jury never actually sees the defendant or the lawyers involved the judgment becomes more objective and less subjective.
The United States won't do anything like this. It would reduce the potential for corruption in a system that enjoys being corrupted.