Hello, I'm been trying to write this story of mine for a couple of years now , but I'm having writer's fatigue and I keep putting it off. My book is
 
about a man (I've decided on the name Markus) who is on trial for murdering his wife and his best friend who is also his defense attorney is
 
the one who killed her. While I have all of my main characters developed (Markus, his wife, his defense attorney, Markus' 17 year old son,

Markus' cell mate, and a local Mafia Don); I'm having trouble with the middle part of my book. My beginning part is mostly a setup to how

Markus' met his wife, how he met his best friend, and how the relationship gets established. My ending is pretty much as you should expect
 
when Markus learns of the betrayal and the results of it. So far I have 2 ideas for my middle part to connect the beginning and end.

- The period between the start and concussion of the trail with explaining the defense attorney's problems, 3 witnesses who were bribed
 into convicting Markus, and the Don's problems and how it relates to Markus' trail.

- The period between the start and concussion of the trail detailing Markus' time in prison, his cell mate's history, and how the rest of the cast deals with Markus' conviction.

Which one do you guys think is a better? Also any other advice would be good also. Thank you.

I like the 1st option myself more then the 2nd option, but it's also the one that keeps getting me stumped. I'll explain my 2 ideas so you can see why:

My first option has the defense attorney dealing with torment of having to defend Markus, the grief of losing a friend (Markus' wife, but its all a ploy
to add some sympathy for him and make the reader not think that he could have killed her. The 3 witnesses are what I like because they have
 
good irony to them (ex. One witness is a secretary who agrees to help convict Markus in exchange for wealth and fame; but she

later gets convicted in one of the world's largest drug bust where most of the money she got for help testimony came from.) The Don's

problems are related to Markus because Markus' defense attorney (who is also his best friend I remind you) is the Don's lawyer who helps the
 
Don get his men out of trouble and help falsely convict people who the Don wants to get rid of (which is the reason why he kills Markus'
 
wife because she discovers this. My problem with this idea is that I'm having trouble with connecting the witnesses with the defense attorney

without the reader knowing that the defense attorney is doing it (so far I've just had someone called "the man in the shadows" as a filler, but it

seems out of place.)

My second option involves Markus having difficulty adjusting to prison wife since all the criminals in the prison dislike him for being a "wife-

killer" and for violating the "criminal's code of honor" (an ironic statement). The cell mate is actually the man who was convicted for burning

down Markus' house (which had his new-born daughter inside and almost killed her; also the defense attorney who represented him was also

Markus' defense attorney), but in reality he didn't do it and was falsely convicted for the crime. The rest of the cast changes their attitude after
 
Markus' is prison (his son at first believes Markus is innocent, but later believes he did kill her, the tension between Markus and his defense

attorney about how the trail is proceeding, and other minor characters who perception of Markus changes as the trail goes on. My problem with

this option is that it lacks some depth in the 1st option and doesn't help me try to steer the reader into thinking that the defense attorney didn't

kill Markus' wife.

(God that took forever to type, but I most likely needed to go in depth so that you guys can understand my problem.)