You didn't mention the most important difference: Nordic countries have "free evidence exhibition", meaning that anything and everything is allowed to be presented as evidence in the courts and the judges have total liberty in deciding on how to weigh evidence.
This means evidence such as hearsay or illegally obtained evidence is given the same consideration as real evidence. Resulting many times that the court can sentence an accused that everybody "knows" is guilty, and other times resulting in mind bogglingly insane verdicts.
Another big difference: No plea deals. Which is something very strange about the American justice system.
You're right, I mostly mostly pointed out civil rather than criminal law differences since that was what I've gotten studies on and concerned myself with due to having a contracting business.
As for the mind-boggling verdicts those seem to more often stem from the politically appointed judges from the media reporting.
The plea deals part is interesting since it's been more frequently bought up to become legal in relation to combating the rising organized crime (but the perverse incentive problem seems to have kept those discussions from going further so far).
I think the most reasonable way is to offer a punishment discount -after- a guilty verdict for those criminals who offer to give up the bigger fish. Having a deal before that just seems wrong, for criminal cases.
This means evidence such as hearsay or illegally obtained evidence is given the same consideration as real evidence. Resulting many times that the court can sentence an accused that everybody "knows" is guilty, and other times resulting in mind bogglingly insane verdicts.
Another big difference: No plea deals. Which is something very strange about the American justice system.