what are the fallacies in this case summary and can you please explain why and provide an example I want to make sure I understand the important key element in this argument.

The Article Summary:

The Washington Post's Columnist Paul Butler has covered the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse who was responsible for three shootings at a Black Lives Matter protest in. The most recent headline "Opinion: Kyle Rittenhouse's $2 million legal funds won his case. Most defendants can't afford that quality of aid." The statistics insinuate prosecutors in self-defense cases are nearly impossible to win and more than 90% of these cases the defendant pleads guilty for the committed crime including homicide (Butler, 2021). The few defendants who risk going to trial will lose. Butler's opinion on this case is Rittenhouse's costly legal defense lawyers were able to prepare him for trial with his testimony and went as far as staging a jury to tell his story the "pretend jurors" was in favor of him testifying and telling his story to the future jury. In Butler's opinion Rittenhouse's rehearsed testimony was most likely the reason jurors did not find him guilty. These resources are not affordable to most criminal defendants. His article compares a similar case in Georgia when the defendant took the stand and was not as well-rehearsed as Rittenhouse, he was in the underprivileged group with representation by an underfunded lawyer appointed to him by the courts. Towards the end of the trial in Georgia the prosecution turned down the defendant's request for a plea. Last Butler wonders if the defendants in the Georgia trial had money like Rittenhouse would the outcome be the same (Butler, 2021)?

The Fallacies: