Suborning Perjury via email and Testilying

Prof Volokh mentions an article about a criminal defense attorney who advises his client to lie via email.

One email says in part: "they won't have anyone there to testify how much you had to drink. You won't be charged with perjury. I've never seen them charge anyone with perjury, and everybody lies in criminal cases, including the cops. If you want to tell the truth, then we'll just plead guilty and you can get your jail time over with."

I'm still not sure whether the comments advocate not giving such advice or not giving such advice via email. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen people surprised not by the content of the communication (bad behavior), but the form in which it was given (leaving evidence of bad behavior). Shouldn't we be more concerned about the former?

I'm also trying to resolve the comments about testilying (I still have my doubts whether WikiPedia should be the reference of choice on issues of witness credibility) with the bagel man in Freakonomics (people are trustworthy more often than you might expect with small amounts of money on the line, but the higher up you go, the more cheating you'll probably see). OK, maybe that is a no-brainer. Have I mentioned recently how often people end up on my blog using the keywords: "ExamSoft cheat"?