We ought not to open the door to an evasion of the statute by this device. Oubre v . It is anomalous to require under a gratuity provision both that testimony actually be given, and that it be false, when the bribery provisions require neither. Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much prohibited as buying perjured testimony . The statute's 'for or because of' language does not require a quid pro quo relation between the testimony and the promises, but merely requires that the promises be motivated by the testimony, even though the testimony might have been given without the promises.
Exclusion is also necessary to remove the incentive to disregard the statute.
Implicit in the reasoning supporting the remedy of exclusion is the fact that absent exclusion of the testimony, the trial court would effectively allow a violation of the ethical rule and the statute to take place in the presence of the court, a prospect which is anathema to traditional precepts of judicial propriety. Justice must not be bought or sold. Attorneys have a solemn responsibility to assure that not even the taint of impropriety exists as to the procurement of testimony before courts of justice. See also id .