You missed a major point: There are two types of courts. One is the Adversarial System that we have in the United States. In this system, the judge is a neutral party and is only there to make sure the proceedings are followed. The prosecutor and defense are suppose to make their own cases. The other is the Inquisitorial System where the judge takes an active roll in questioning the witnesses and determining what happened.
The Chinese System is an Inquisitorial System and is similar to the French system where Judges are suppose to take an active roll in the case and determine what happened. There are no juries in the Chinese system (in France, juries are a relatively new feature.). Also, unlike the French, the court does not prosecute. There is an independent prosecutor that is appointed by the state. However, like in France, there is no right to remain silent. The judge’s job is to get to the truth, and you can be compelled to testify against yourself.
Officially, judges are elected to a maximum of two five year terms, but since elections are under a communist system, that basically means they’re appointed by the party and can be influenced by the party. Most cases are probably fair, but if the party itself or a high up party member has a stake in the outcome, you might be in trouble.
The presumption of innocence is common in almost all judicial systems and is not just an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. What is found in Anglo-Saxon tradition, but not necessarily in other traditions the right against self incrimination, juries, and the adversarial system of running the court.
On paper, the Chinese system is very much like the ones found in other democratic countries, but like all other government operations in China, it is under the eye of the Communist Party. Depending upon the mood of the party, Judges maybe well trained and quite professional, or party hacks with little training. I believe that China is leaning towards training its judges and running its judiciary in a more professional manner. But that can change.