Menendez Juror Sues Another Over Comments : Litigation: Alternate who was dismissed during trial says statements by a TV talk show guest slandered her.

One of the jurors from the Menendez brothers murder trial is suing another over comments made during a TV talk show that aired Monday, alleging his remarks were slanderous.

Judith Kaplan Zamos, 55, of Woodland Hills filed the suit in San Fernando Superior Court against Jude Nelson, 53, of Sylmar, asserting that he slandered her when he said on “The Maury Povich Show” that she was dismissed from jury service for “misconduct.”

In the suit, filed by her attorney husband, Zamos, a nurse and teacher, said she was dismissed not for wrongdoing but at her request for “personal and philosophical concerns.”

The lawsuit adds yet another twist to the soap opera surrounding Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Beverly Hills brothers charged with murder in the Aug. 20, 1989, shotgun slayings of their wealthy parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.

It also highlights the bitter divisions produced by the brothers’ first trial, which ended in January with separate juries--one for each brother--split between murder and lesser manslaughter charges.

A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 27 in Van Nuys Superior Court to set a new trial date. The brothers remain in County Jail without bail.

At the first trial, Nelson served as Juror No. 4 on the Lyle Menendez jury. He voted for first-degree murder.

Zamos was an alternate on the Lyle Menendez jury. She did not take part in deliberations, but has said that she would have voted for manslaughter.

On the Povich show, taped Aug. 26 at a New York studio and aired Monday in Los Angeles on KCAL (Channel 9), Nelson and Zamos freely traded insults.

“What I’d like to say is if Judy is normal, I wouldn’t want to be normal for anything,” Nelson said.

Later, he said: “I cannot believe that we have jurisprudence such that they would get people on a, on a capital murder case--”

At that point, Zamos interrupted: “Oh, God, he’s learned a three-syllable word.” Moments later, she added: “Listen to this guy. Can you believe how ignorant he is? Would you want your life to be in this man’s hands?”

“Ignorant?” he retorted. “Oh, come on, give me a break, lady.”

“Oh, I need to give you a break,” she said.

Instead, Zamos sued Aug. 30, alleging that Nelson slandered her when he accused her during the broadcast of misconduct. Nelson said he had heard from an attorney connected to the case that she had “called in and complained” during the trial about an interview with Dominick Dunne, who was writing about the trial for Vanity Fair magazine.

Jurors in a criminal case are not permitted to read newspaper accounts or watch TV reports about the case while it is in trial.

Nelson also said Zamos wrote letters complaining about him to Judge Stanley M. Weisberg. “This is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard,” she said on the Povich show.

Zamos told the audience that she was not kicked off the jury. In fact, she said, she became troubled upon hearing of “some of the things that were happening in the jury room,” and asked to be released from service.

It remains unclear how Zamos would have learned of events in the jury room, because deliberations are supposed to remain secret, even from alternate jurors.

Zamos was dismissed from the jury by Weisberg after several closed-door hearings. A Jan. 5 order does not say why she was excused. Her husband, Woodland Hills lawyer Jerome Zamos, said she was never told that she had done anything wrong. “If she was dismissed for cause, shouldn’t she know it?” he asked.

“I was present when she was dismissed,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Pamela Bozanich, the chief prosecutor in the first trial. “I’d be happy to testify for Mr. Nelson.”

She did not elaborate.

Jill Lansing, who was Lyle Menendez’s lead defense lawyer in the first trial, could not be reached for comment.

The suit seeks general and punitive damages and court costs.

Nelson, who is unemployed, said Monday that he was “surprised and shocked” by the suit. “She has her husband to represent her, so her attorney fees are virtually nil,” he said. “She knows I’m out of work and cannot afford to hire an attorney to answer this. It’s pretty petty and in and of itself is malicious.”