 In United States v. Phillips ( 1832 ) , the Court dismissed a criminal action , on the motion of the Attorney General , pursuant to the district prosecutor 's filing of a nolle prosequi motion ( a motion by the prosecutor to dismiss the case ) in the trial court , even though the nolle prosequi motion was filed after the writ of error issued from the Supreme Court . Phillips has been cited as an early example of judicial recognition of the norm of prosecutorial enforcement discretion and as an example of mootness ( although the Phillips Court did not use that term ) . The underlying case had involved the prosecution of Zalegman Phillips , a prominent Philadelphia attorney , for interfering with diplomatic immunity , as protected by the Crimes Act of 1790 , by filing a lawsuit against a former diplomat . The question certified was whether the provision extended to former diplomats . 
