WASHINGTON — Eric Munchel “Zip-tie Guy” and his mother, Lisa Eisenhart, filed a motion Fridayrequesting release pending appeal of their January 6 convictions.
“Defendants Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart respectfully move this Court for release pending appeal," court documents said. "Defendants satisfy the criteria for release on appeal because they pose no flight or safety risk, their appeals are not for the purpose of delay, and their appeals raise a substantial question of law that, if decided in defendants’ favor, would likely result in a reduced sentence that would expire before their appeals conclude.”
Attorneys argued that both Munchel and Eisenhart “have fully complied with all conditions of release and appeared for all court appearances, have maintained full-time employment and demonstrated remorse for their conduct.”
Attorneys also said that Munchel recently got married, had a child and is more likely than ever to comply with the court’s decisions.
Both were sentenced in September on misdemeanor and felony charges related to the Capitol riots, but successfully petitioned a judge to move their surrender date to January 26, 2024.
Munchel was convicted of several charges including entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon. He later gained nationwide notoriety after images surfaced of him carrying stolen zip-ties into the Senate Chamber during the Capitol riots, along with a taser.
The pair were seen wearing tactical vests while walking into the Capitol on Jan. 6 and prosecutors say they later encouraged rioters to fight with police.
The courts would later find Eisenhart guilty of several charges as well, including disorderly conduct in a Capitol building or grounds.
At sentencing, Judge Royce C. Lamberth said that it was clear that Munchel stole the zip-ties and carried them into the Senate gallery because he, "intended to take senators hostage, if possible. Luckily, all of the senators and their staffs had already evacuated."
Munchel was sentenced to 57 months in prison, 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution. Meanwhile, Eisenhart was sentenced to 40 months in prison, with all other conditions being the same.
Attorneys argued that because the language of the felony statutes Munchel and Eisenhart were accused of violating are “undefined and vague,” they should be released while waiting on appeal and a final decision by the Supreme Court on a similar case of United States v. Fischer.
“Both defendants challenged the application of the felony obstruction statute on numerous grounds including that the requirement that a defendant must act “corruptly” involves language that is undefined and vague. That the term “official proceeding” is undefined and vague. That “corrupt purpose” must be limited to a narrow category of situations in which a defendant has personally benefited and the statute’s “otherwise” clause requires proof of a separate offense which was not alleged here.”
“Without the felonies they were charged with, their guideline range for sentencing would have been substantially lower," attorneys said.
The motion later reads that if the court decides not to grant this motion, Munchel and Eisenhart will request another extension for their surrender date. This time, until the Fischer case is settled by the Supreme Court.
Munchel and Eisenhart live in Nashville. Eisenhart requested to change her home address to be closer to her family before having to turn herself in.
