Can You Trust What You See? Human and AI Detection of Synthetic Legal Evidence

The growing ability of generative models to produce realistic documents poses a direct challenge to evidentiary workflows in the justice system and the courts, where decisions increasingly depend on the authenticity of evidence such as receipts, communications, and administrative records. Unlike social media or academic settings, evidentiary documents are often only subtly altered, with small, localized edits that preserve overall plausibility while changing legal meaning. Yet progress on automated detection remains limited, largely due to the absence of suitable training and evaluation data especially suited for the justice system requirements. Existing resources are either focused on photos of human faces or natural scenery or on narrowly scoped academic or social media document types, and do not capture the structure, diversity, or manipulation patterns characteristic of real-world evidentiary data. As a result, current detection systems do not necessarily learn meaningful signals appropriate for the justice system. We introduce the CIFAR Synthetic Evidence Corpus, a dataset designed to enable rigorous evaluation of evidence verification under realistic and controlled conditions. The corpus spans multiple document families and a spectrum of manipulation strategies, from small field-level edits to complete document fabrication, and is constructed using a diverse set of state-of-the-art generative tools. It is organized to systematically vary both manipulation complexity and generation method, while enforcing source-level separation between training and test data to reflect real-world generalization challenges.

Governments are increasingly mandating that LLM-generated content carry watermarks. The EU AI Act calls for markings that are "sufficiently reliable and robust." California's SB 942 requires disclosure that is "permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove." Both mandates rest on an untested assumption: that watermark detection yields evidence reliable enough for courts. This paper tests that assumption directly. We evaluate three representative LLM watermarking methods -- KGW, Unigram, and the MarkLLM implementation of SynthID-Text -- against the Daubert admissibility criteria and the NIST SP 800-86 digital forensic process. To structure this evaluation, we propose a Forensic Readiness Score (FRS) framework with 12 criteria, three mandatory gates, and a 60-point scoring system. We focus on meaning-preserving paraphrase as the attack vector, since it is both legally realistic and difficult to dismiss as evidence tampering. The results raise serious evidentiary concerns. Out of 846 valid paraphrase runs across 15 diverse prompts per method, every single initially-detected KGW and Unigram text lost its watermark after paraphrasing -- 100% conditional removal. SynthID fared only slightly better at 98.3%. Even before any attack, false-negative rates were already high: 70% for KGW, 83% for Unigram, 80% for SynthID. The SynthID configuration also flagged 5.4% of paraphrased human-written controls as AI-generated and showed an 18.6% paradox rate, with 80% of its own pristine watermarked output landing in the uncertainty deadband. None of the three methods satisfy more than two of five Daubert factors. We also find that the FRS point-based scoring system, despite working as designed, cannot fully capture forensic uselessness -- a limitation worth noting for future framework design. These configurations, as tested, do not meet the evidentiary bar that courts require.

Recent generative models can now produce visual artifacts with realistic embedded text and layouts, creating a new misinformation threat: synthetic credibility. We introduce SYNCRED-Bench, a benchmark of 600 AI-generated misinformation images balanced across six credible-form categories and seven fine-grained circulation styles, together with FP450, a real-image negative set for measuring false positives. Extensive evaluation shows that existing systems remain unreliable: under a 5% false-positive-rate constraint, 15 MLLMs achieve only 10.5% true positive rate (TPR), open-source AIGC detectors achieve less than 5%, and commercial APIs reach 57.6%. Human annotators also struggled to identify synthetic credibility, reaching only 63% TPR. These findings establish synthetic credibility as a severe and underexplored visual misinformation challenge, and provide a benchmark for developing detectors that reason beyond superficial credibility cues.