We all know that the woman who sits before you is tired. Just look at the circles under her eyes. The novelty Pride and Prejudice T-shirt and Muji sweatpants that pass for pajamas. The unkempt, banana clip hairstyle that says “I really did wake up like this.” But she’s doing her best. And that’s why she deserves this court’s time and attention, to correct the injustice of last night’s sleep score.

To be clear, my client thinks the sleep score assigned by her Pixel Watch is generally fair. Should she go to bed before 10:30PM most nights? Sure. Dinging points for a late-night Instagram scrolling session is reasonable. She’s receptive to the valuable insights that the watch offers, like “go to bed earlier” and “stop going to bed so late.” But allowances should be made for extenuating circumstances.

I think we can all agree that you don’t get the best night’s sleep on a camping trip. But a 71? Out of 100? It’s just unfair. An adjustment should be made based on factors that were well out of my client’s control. For starters, the people at the next campsite were chatting loudly until 2AM. Under normal conditions, my client would use a white noise app on her phone to drown out the sound. But your honor, this simply wasn’t an option when it would almost certainly drain the phone battery in a matter of hours. And doesn’t playing white noise at night when you’re sleeping in nature kind of defeat the point?

There’s also the matter of the five-year-old who was also in the tent. How would you sleep, members of the jury, if you were sharing an air mattress with a kid who insists on sleeping sideways? And then there was the 3AM escort to the bathroom. Your honor can’t expect my client to have sent her child to the bathroom alone with just a head lamp and best wishes. My client even insisted on him going to the bathroom right before bedtime. What’s the deal with five-year-olds? How do they hold so much liquid? Is six consecutive hours without a pee too much to ask, your honor?

Of course, we should address some details that came to light through cross-examination. We know that my client had not one, but two canned cocktails before retiring to bed. Was an espresso martini before bed a sound choice? Surely not. But your honor, who among us hasn’t succumbed to the temptation of one more libation while sitting around a (propane-fueled, burn-ban-safe) campfire? Does such behavior really warrant such a low score? Anyway, she won’t be doing that again anytime soon. It’s almost as if the watch awarding such a low score was a bit of a “wake-up call,” using data to inspire a change in habit. That’s a little sleep humor, and actually, strike that all from the record. Justice must prevail.

If anything, the members of the jury should find the fact that my client slept at all worth an adjustment, given the conditions. The chipmunks were outside of the tent screeching at each other starting at 6AM, for some goddamn reason. And there was that weird bird? Probably a bird. It was shrieking intermittently starting at dawn. And yet my client achieved several hours of consecutive deep sleep, the record shows, against all odds. Surely this performance deserves at least an 80. We ask that the members of the jury find it in their hearts to raise this score to a grade that a former gifted and talented kid can stomach.

The prosecution rests, your honor. Ideally for seven to eight hours, but we’ll settle for what we can get.