{
  "abstract": "Introduction: Legal decision makers may remember information without using it to update a legal judgment, and may respond differently to the same recommendation depending on its attributed source. LEAD separates these processes into memory-entry, judgment-incorporation, and authority-deference gates.\n\nMethods: We reanalyzed three public, de-identified datasets: one jury-deliberation misinformation study and two preregistered judge-versus-artificial-intelligence sentencing studies. We compared gate-specific estimates while retaining study-specific outcomes and raw units.\n\nResults: In Study 1, pro-prosecution misinformation crossed the memory-entry gate more clearly than the judgment-incorporation gate. In Studies 2 and 3, mitigating case facts produced larger judgment-incorporation effects than authority-source assignment. The authority-source effect was equivalent to zero within a prespecified small-effect bound in Study 2 (source Experiment 1), but remained inconclusive in Study 3 (source Experiment 2).\n\nDiscussion: LEAD identifies which process changed and supports cross-gate magnitude comparisons without treating unlike outcomes as identical. This secondary analysis does not estimate behavior in real courts, but it provides a transparent framework for forensic and legal psychology.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "School of Law, Tianjin University , ,"
  ],
  "article_type": "research article",
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 1,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Xiangran Xie"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/685mt0gyp19ec.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1956486",
  "fulltext_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13719418/?tool=EBI",
  "id": "685mt0gyp19ec",
  "issns": [
    "1664-1078"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13719418",
  "language": "eng",
  "licence": "CC-BY",
  "licence_label": "CC BY",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "heading",
      "Original Research"
    ],
    [
      "openalex",
      "3308|Jury Decision Making Processes"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7222620846",
  "pdf_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13719418/pdf/?tool=EBI",
  "pmcid": "PMC13719418",
  "pmid": "42964063",
  "published": "2026-10-16",
  "publisher": "Frontiers Media SA",
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/685mt0gyp19ec.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-31T12:21:36Z",
      "native_id": "PMC:PMC13719418",
      "source": "europepmc",
      "url": "https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13719418"
    },
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-11-02T12:23:23Z",
      "native_id": "PMC13719418",
      "source": "pmc",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1956486"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [],
  "title": "Legal Evidence–Authority Dissociation in juror judgment: a multistudy reanalysis of memory contamination and AI advice",
  "title_text": "Legal Evidence–Authority Dissociation in juror judgment: a multistudy reanalysis of memory contamination and AI advice",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-11-03T12:20:29Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/685mt0gyp19ec",
  "venue": "Frontiers in psychology",
  "versions": []
}