I think what I mean that presuming a de novo trial MAY occur (not up to the court to decide) isn't proper consideration for a DC to decide not to preserve evidence to comply with Rule 4-322; otherwise, it effectively declares the usually persnickety Court of Appeals stupid in its construction of the rule in not recognizing the basic makeup of Maryland's system, where it differentiates between them in any # of rules. A lower tribunal deciding in advance it will never ever need to refer to its trial record in a future proceeding (as mentioned in Bradley) seems odd. Never mind that in the subject case there was a ... PBJ; there are reasons why that person may need to be able to point to the official record or collaterally attack the court's record down the road. (And if one side claims that its copy of X is a true copy of Y document evidence and the other says "nuh-uh" how does court reasonably decide who is lying if it didn't bother to keep a copy?