Receiving nonsensical answer from court, effectively declaring exceptional phrase in Rule 4-322 ("unless...court orders otherwise") means judge free if (s)he likes not to keep in case file/court custody submitted/admitted exhs...that it's a "common practice" when de novo appeal "may occur" (uhm, true in virtually Every Damn Case, with exceptions). Isn't assertion crazy, or am I? Only case I see spking to 4-322 is Bradley v. State, 333 Md. 593 (1994), + even then wasn't matter of trial court not keeping custody of ANY exhs but COA chiding it for not kping custody of a phone bill + photos (gave back to State who "lost" 'em). What's silly is exhibits in question are copies of emails/ltrs + no logical reason not to preserve such in court record. I say court wants evid out of public viewIf what you say is true; it's like saying exception IS rule + rule back seat to exception. Case cited has COA say: "when exercising .. discretion in determining whether exhs should/should not remain in .. custody of .. clerk, a trial judge should consider how inconvenient it is for .. clerk to preserve .. exhs and ... importance of preserving exhs ... Paper exh ... in .. instant case c/be easily preserved by .. clerk within .. case file. Further, if .. court determines .. exhs s/be returned to .. parties, it should attempt to assure/guarantee .. parties preserve them so .. available for appellate revw or in .. event of a new trial." Notion copies of 12 pages couldn't be kept in custody of court/case file is nonsense. Given certain evid (text msgs) was allowed via oral testimony of witness by reading msgs off phone + no tangible exh for all to see (not even photos of texts), think ct didn’t much care about integrity let alone preservtion of evid. ... + thanks, but not concerned ovr identifying info.