Usually there are a series of elements that together create a fact. If you ask someone if they perjured themselves, they essentially have three choices to avoi

Usually there are a series of elements that together create a fact. If you ask someone if they perjured themselves, they essentially have three choices to avoid a penalty: 1. Lie 2. Rationalize (it wasn't perjury becuase x, y, z) (and which you are not prepared to counter-argue). 3. Take the fifth and refuse to answer. Your better off getting there questioning various elements, and then presenting an argument that the signed document was invalid. 1. Did you witness the speeding? 2. Were you able to identify the driver of the car? 3. Please read this document (Plaintiff's exhibit A that states "I witnessed the speeding" and "I identified the driver of the car as x" 4. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document? 5. Are there any other signatures on this document? Then you argue that since important elements in the document were in fact proven to be false, the document cannot be used as evidence that the defendant violated the law. Since there is no other evidence, the violation conviction must be vacated.