Netherland, for example. There's probably no shortage of other examples. From what I understand, most civil law systems do not rely on juries, or to a much lesser extent than common law systems tend to do. But even many common law countries rely a lot less on juries than the US does, and often with better results than the US with its frequently blatantly racist/classist verdicts.
The big problem with juries is that guilt is determined by a random cross section of the population in that area, and if certain prejudices are common in the population in that area, those prejudices will influence the verdict. For example, black people are more likely to be found guilty in racist areas, and white people less so.
Of course judges can also be subject to prejudice, but it's a lot easier to train them out of those prejudices and hold them accountable for them, because it's a much smaller group that requires special training.
The defendant in the US has the choice of a jury trial or a bench trial. It is not a requirement. The latter has no jury, only a judge. If the defendant chooses a jury trial obviously they think that’s going to have a better outcome for them.
If a verdict is “blatantly” classist or racist, there may be more going on than you’ve read about the case. This is pretty common, US journalism is not great and when cases get reported internationally it usually gets even worse.
The big problem with juries is that guilt is determined by a random cross section of the population in that area, and if certain prejudices are common in the population in that area, those prejudices will influence the verdict. For example, black people are more likely to be found guilty in racist areas, and white people less so.
Of course judges can also be subject to prejudice, but it's a lot easier to train them out of those prejudices and hold them accountable for them, because it's a much smaller group that requires special training.