Four Men Charged in Separate Child Sex Abuse Cases; All Four Matters Are Undecided
Outlets disagree on the announcement date. Defendants are named in Maryland, Wisconsin, Texas and Georgia — and every one of the four cases is still only at the charging stage, with no trial, no verdict and no sentence reported.
By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 15, 2026, 1:56 a.m. ET
Developing
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
Four men face charges in separate cases involving alleged child sex offenses, and **none of the four cases has been resolved**. Each remains at the charging stage, undecided, with no outcome of any kind in the reporting. The announcements were reported on dates the outlets do not agree on: foxbaltimore.com reported them on August 12, 2026, while abc7amarillo.com reported August 14, 2026. The defendants are Maurilio Mares, 19, of Manitowoc; David Lee Mangum, 29, from Frederick; Eric Lamont Green, of Amarillo, Texas; and Mike McGuffey, as reported by wbay.com, foxbaltimore.com, wcbm.com, abc7amarillo.com and wsbradio.com. This account is developing.
All four matters stand at the charging stage, the five outlets report, and all four are open. A charge is an accusation and nothing more: none of the men has been tried, no jury or judge has returned a finding on any count, no plea outcome has been reported, and each is presumed innocent unless and until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The reporting carried no verdict, no counts of conviction, no dismissal, no sentence and no sentencing date, and none of the outlets reported a date for the next step in any case. Nothing in the source reporting says how any of these cases came out, because as reported none of them has come out yet.
The charges reported across the five outlets are two counts of obscene visual depictions of the sexual abuse of children, two counts of committing a felony sex offense while required to register as a sexual offender, five counts of receiving child sexual abuse material, one count of transferring obscene material to a minor, one count of possessing child sexual abuse material, indecency with a child by sexual contact, indecency with a child by exposure, child molestation, and enticing a child. Every one of those counts is an untested allegation.
On the prosecuting office, the outlets differ: wcbm.com and foxbaltimore.com both identify the , the better-supported account, while wbay.com identifies the . The disagreement is unresolved.
The accounts of the alleged conduct diverge, and no version is better supported than the others. wcbm.com attributes to the government, and foxbaltimore.com to the indictment, allegations that from 2025 to early 2026 David Lee Mangum used social media accounts to receive visual depictions of at least five minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct; that on at least one occasion he sent a video of himself engaging in sexually explicit conduct to one of the victims; and that a search of his phone revealed several images containing child sexual abuse material. wbay.com reports abc7amarillo.com reports that court records allege Eric Lamont Green exposed himself and caused a child's hand to make contact with his genitals for sexual gratification, and that Green told police he showed the child his genitals and that she then "rubbed" them. wsbradio.com reports All of these remain allegations that have not been tested at trial.
On the penalties that could follow a conviction, the reporting again splits, and no version outweighs the others. wcbm.com reports a . foxbaltimore.com reports a wbay.com reports a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison and up to 40 years; a mandatory 10-year consecutive sentence; a fine up to $250,000; and supervised release five years to life. Those figures describe only what the law permits if guilt is established. No conviction has been entered and no sentence has been imposed on any of the four men.
As of the most recent reporting in this account — and the outlets disagree on whether that is August 12, 2026, per foxbaltimore.com, or August 14, 2026, per abc7amarillo.com — all four cases remain open and undecided. Readers encountering this story later should not treat the charges above as an outcome; the source reporting records none.
Made the undecided status explicit where a later reader will see it: the headline now says the matters are undecided, the dek says no trial, verdict or sentence has been reported, and the first paragraph opens on the fact that none of the four cases has been resolved. Strengthened the charging-stage paragraph to add that no plea outcome, dismissal or sentence was reported and that the source reporting contains no outcome at all. Added a closing paragraph stating the cases remain open and undecided as of the latest reported date, while preserving the date conflict rather than resolving it. Separated the wcbm.com and foxbaltimore.com penalty statements so each conflicting version is quoted with its own attribution and exact figures ($250,000; five years to life; 15/40, 10/20, 10 years). Left untouched: the district conflict (Maryland led as better supported, Eastern District of Wisconsin reported in the same breath), the full charge list, all four attributed conduct accounts including the government/indictment attribution split, and the source list.
Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:53
First published.
Version 112 Aug 2026, 03:38
First published.
Version 115 Aug 2026, 17:21current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.