I served as a juror last week. It was a civil case, as opposed to a criminal case. Civil cases and criminal cases have different burdens of proof (in the US system). In a criminal case, the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the claims against the defendant must be shown to be more likely true than not true.
In the closing statements, each attorney used a different metaphor for the burden of proof.
The plaintiff's attorney said it was like a balance. Each side places evidence on the balance, and they are weighed against each other. If the balance tips just a little way towards the plaintiff, then it meets the burden of proof.
The defendant's attorney said it was like a water bottle that you fill up with evidence. It starts out empty, and the plaintiff has to fill it up half-way. Even if the defendant makes no effort to empty that bottle, the plaintiff may still fail to fill it up half-way.
I felt this was an interesting demonstration of how you can totally BS with metaphors. Which metaphor do you think is more accurate?