You are technically correct but seem to be applying common law standards to civil law countries.
Unlike common law judiciary, civil law judiciary in and of itself has investigatory powers and judges don’t just hear arguments but can order their own investigations and are significantly more independent than in common law.
This can cut both ways, yes in theory the judge can accept evidence the prosecution obtained illegally, but the judges can also call the prosecutions bluff and call their own witnesses or order an independent expert to provide their own opinion, even if defense is unable to.
Scandinavian law is commonly considered to be a subcategory of civil law. Judges in Scandinavia have investigative powers and can judge the truth of the matter.
>Scandinavian law is commonly considered to be a subcategory of civil law
Their judiciaries are very different from how you describe civil law systems.
>Judges in Scandinavia have investigative powers and can judge the truth of the matter.
This is, at best, technically correct. While Judges in Nordic countries tend to technically have some limited investigative powers, it is extraordinarily unusual for them to be used in any meaningful capacity.
In reality the investigate powers wielded by judges in Nordic countries tend to be the same as in common law countries, asking a question here and there during the hearing to make sure they're keeping up.
These countries are certainly not at all like France or Spain where you might have examining magistrates, criminal investigations are run by the police and prosecutors.
Note that original discussion was discussing extraordinary unusual circumstances already.
This isn’t your average „my neighbor built a fence and damaged my tree“ case.
In such cases, the technical differences between fully adversarial common law systems and mixed-but-still-some-inquisitive-powers systems like the Nordic law matters.
And of course it is not exactly like Napoleonic law countries.
Also, the police still runs investigations, even in France. It’s just that the judges can choose to not believe the police. Famously, even if you sign a confession they can say they don’t believe it.
Unlike common law judiciary, civil law judiciary in and of itself has investigatory powers and judges don’t just hear arguments but can order their own investigations and are significantly more independent than in common law.
This can cut both ways, yes in theory the judge can accept evidence the prosecution obtained illegally, but the judges can also call the prosecutions bluff and call their own witnesses or order an independent expert to provide their own opinion, even if defense is unable to.