State prosecutors, having twice failed to convict the man accused in the January 2003 brutal stabbing deaths of Richard and Rosa Flowers, will pursue the case yet again in a highly unusual third trial, scheduled to begin Oct. 6 in a Craven County courtroom.

This time, however, Assistant District Attorneys Ann Kirby and David Spence have upped the ante.

In addition to the two counts of First Degree Murder, the defendant, Vaughn Jones, now stands accused of Armed Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary.

The latter charges, approved Thursday during a withering day of pre-trial motions, give prosecutors more chances to come away with some type of conviction.

The cast of characters changes slightly for this, the third iteration. Superior Court Judge Ken Crow replaces his counterpart on the bench, Judge Ben Alford, who presided over the first two trials.

And, after two tries, former District Attorney David McFadyen will not return, though he remains in the background. Kirby and Spence will no doubt benefit from his experience, which includes McFadyen’s immediate hands-on investigation in the hours immediately following discovery of the Flowers’ bludgeoned bodies.

Richard McNeil, the court-appointed attorney for Jones, returns -- as does veteran investigator for the defense, Jerry Waller.

After more than five-and-a-half years of legal wrangling, McNeil has twice staved off convictions with back-to-back hung juries.

The first, a 6 to 6 impasse, came in 2006 after a trial in Pamlico County during which prosecutors sought the death penalty.

Then last year, looking for a jury less familiar with the case and presumably more inclined to convict, McFadyen successfully argued for a change of venue to Craven, while dropping his request for capital punishment.

Nevertheless, after two weeks of riveting testimony from a litany of prosecution witnesses, only seven jurors were convinced of Jones’ guilt.

Though he deferred any formal decision on the motion until next week, Crow hinted he is inclined to grant a prosecution request for a “jury view,” in which the panel of 12 and two alternates would be transported during a weekday to Pamlico County.

This outing would offer jurors an opportunity to see the scene of the crime and other relevant locations, according to Kirby. She mentioned jurors “would see the time it takes to get from one location to the next,” -- a help because timelines play an important role in the prosecution’s theory of the crime.

“The State’s theory of the case may be a bit different from that of the first two trials,” said Kirby, as

McNeil strenuously objected.

“We can certainly understand why the State would want to change its theory of the case,” lamented McNeil. “After all, 46 percent of the people on the juries from the first two trials have had a reasonable doubt.”

He asked:  “Can we really go back and replicate something that happened five years ago?” And, referring to the time of the murders, he added “We have the issue of night versus day. Such an outing may even be misleading to the jury.”

Crow acknowledged the attorney’s concerns, but countered that the “evidentiary” value would likely far outweigh any possible prejudicial effects to Jones’ defense.

“It has always been helpful to me to actually see the lay of the land,” said Crow, who admonished Kirby and Spence to furnish a detailed itinerary and “a lot more specifics that I will need to know before I rule on your motion.”

Crow also indicated he will likely keep the date, time, and route secret to minimize any chance of a  “breech in security.”

“I don’t want any advance knowledge released about when and where the jury may be going,” he said, later adding: “We can’t be naïve to the fact that the public is going to be very interested in this case.”

In an angry exchange worthy of the best television drama, McNeil and Spence butted heads midway through the proceedings.

As is customary, McNeil stood while addressing Crow. But, at one point, Spence also rose from his chair across the courtroom.

A clearly miffed McNeil, turned to Spence and snapped: “Can I finish?”

Spence, equally abrupt, replied: “I’m just standing up.”

McNeil appeared to get the best of the testy interlude with a quick aside, directed more to observers in the courtroom: “Generally opposing attorneys don’t stand when a defense attorney is making an argument.”

The verbal fisticuffs set the stage for a contentious motion, which also reared its head during the 2007 trial. Prosecutors want to admit as evidence a DNA sample, obtained from the front door of the Flowers’ home and analyzed in 2004 by a forensic expert employed by the State Bureau of Investigation.

That report indicates the sample is a microscopic mixture of blood from both Richard Flowers and Jones -- a finding that could sway a third jury.

The S.B.I. technician, Brenda Bissette, has since been discredited and left the agency under a cloud.

“The bottom line is she made a lot of mistakes,” explained McNeil, in arguing for his motion to suppress the evidence.

Complicating matters is that a new analysis cannot be conducted because the original tests consumed all of a microscopic sample.

Spence and Kirby want to introduce the report by way of another acknowledged expert, David Freeman, a 13-year veteran of the S.B.I.

McNeil contends the prosecution should instead subpoena Bissette. Her presence in the witness stand would give him the opportunity to possibly impeach her testimony -- and her DNA analysis -- during cross-examination.

“The DNA evidence of this case is critical,” said Crow, who promised to rule on the motion next week. “In fact, it may well be the linchpin of this case.”