Being an interpreter in court requires a depth of skill and mastery not much seen elsewhere.
Translating a court case and judgment, from one jurisdiction and system to another, requires an even greater mastery.
You can’t just go, “X is like Y” (even though it may be), because it is too misleading for those who have never been on or seen the other side.
The French for ‘London’ is Paris.
On the other hand, with willing listeners in the tour group, two systems, although different at street-level, will have similarities and equivalences at a more abstract, functional level: deciding a question of fact, for example, will be the task of the tribunal of fact (however constituted), and so a court-panel in France or Italy, made up of career judges and community citizens acting as a board, can be referred to as a ‘jury’ in that respect, even though how they are selected and how they enter and leave the courtroom and where they sit is different. (More like a grand jury than the petty jury of TV shows.)*
*TV is another influence on how people** perceive a court case should be like.
**Including law students.