In United States v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 848, 33 V.I. 265 (3d Cir. 1995) the appellate court concluded the trial court erred in precluding the same law professor from criticizing handwriting standards. The appellate court did not explicitly address the professor's qualifications. Id. Instead, it "pointed to the Professor's eight years of self-directed research on handwriting analysis and his co-authorship of a law review article on the subject." Id. at 851. It also noted that the government's expert was aware of the professor's scholarship, the professor's criticisms were similar to critiques that had been subject to peer review, and the professor's opinions were specific to the methods used by the government's expert. Id. at 851-52. Additionally, the professor had read "nearly all of the literature on the subject," and he had been named an American Bar Association Fellow for creating a testing mechanism to certify handwriting analysts and to validate the accuracy of their identifications. Id. at 847 n.4.