I've never been on a jury and live in a country that doesn't have juries at all, as far as I'm aware, but if I lived in the US and served on a jury there, I would never convict solely on police testimony. The police are often not a neutral party. And especially with all the stories of police quotas, extremist groups infiltrating the police, rampant racism in some police departments, and even law enforcement experts telling people to never talk to the police without a lawyer, the US police doesn't come across to me as particularly trustworthy.

Grand juries aren't a real trial. It's a procedural requirement before you federally try somebody for a felony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

Sure but that's only the indictment phase. Basically, is there any case here at all. The rest will come out in the trial phase.

I'm not sure why I'm getting multiple replies explaining the purpose of a grand jury when I just said I served on one for three months. I understand the purpose and process more than most here.

Indictment alone is serious business. It is enough to ruin someone's life, and is not to be taken lightly. So when a grand jury is only given police testimony as evidence, that indicates a shortcoming in the system.

The grand jury and the jury for trial are different things.