FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Four Defendants Named in Child Sex-Abuse Charges; Record Stops at the Charging Stage

The available record lists four defendants and a set of child sex-abuse charges, and nothing beyond. No announcement date, no description of the alleged conduct and no sentencing exposure is recorded, and every charge remains an untested allegation.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 1:21 p.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.

More on this incident

Four defendants are named as with child sex-abuse offenses in the record compiled for this report, and that record goes no further than the charging stage. None of the four is recorded as having entered a plea, gone to trial, been convicted, been acquitted or been sentenced. Each is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. The record carries no statement from prosecutors on the presumption of innocence, which makes it worth stating plainly: everything set out below is an allegation that a court has yet to test. The defendants, as recorded, are Maurilio Mares, 19, of Manitowoc; David Lee Mangum, 29, from Frederick; Eric Lamont Green, of Amarillo, Texas; and Mike McGuffey. No age or location is recorded for McGuffey. The record does not say whether these four names belong to a single prosecution or to several separate ones, and it does not link any individual charge to any individual defendant. This account therefore does not assign charges to named people, and readers should not infer such an assignment from the order in which the two lists appear. The charges recorded 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. One prosecuting office is recorded: the . The record does not say which of the four defendants that office is prosecuting, and it names no other office. One of the listed locations, Amarillo, Texas, lies outside Maryland; the record does not explain that, and this account does not resolve it by guessing at a second jurisdiction. Several things a reader would reasonably want are simply absent from the record, and are left absent here rather than filled in. No date is recorded for when the charges were announced or filed, so no date is given. No description of the conduct alleged is recorded — no dates of alleged offenses, no account of what any defendant is said to have done, no number of alleged victims — so none is described. No statutory maximum, mandatory minimum, fine or term of supervised release is recorded, so this account states no possible penalty; any sentencing exposure would in any event apply only on conviction, which has not occurred. Because the record stops at the charging stage, the outcome of these charges is undecided. Nothing here shows a case reaching trial, plea, dismissal or verdict. A reader coming to this account later should not read it as a resolution, and anything beyond the charges themselves would require reporting that this record does not contain. The published reports the record was compiled from are listed below.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 215 Aug 2026, 05:56current

    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.

  2. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:53

    First published.

  3. Version 112 Aug 2026, 03:38

    First published.

  4. 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.