was first introduced prior to his taking the stand, Valentine took the stand and presented testimony that he was silent when told he was under arrest for murder. Because Valentine testified to his own silence, neither Doyle nor Fletcher clearly applies to these facts. We conclude that the state court decision is not contrary to Supreme Court law, and consider whether the state court’s application of clearly established law was objectively unreasonable. Circuit court precedent is relevant only to the extent that it “illuminates the application of clearly established law.” Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir.2004). In this case, circuit court precedent reveals a divergence of opinion in cases addressing this issue. Compare United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 385 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Whitehead, 200 F.3d 634, 638
holding that the government may comment on a defendants prearrest premiranda silence as well as his postarrest pr emiranda silence holding that the admission of a defendants postarrest premiranda silence in the prosecutions caseinchief violates the fifth amendment because the defendant was in custody holding that substantive use of prearrest silence is contrary to fifth amendment holding that introduction of defendants premiranda custodial silence is violation of fifth amendment holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds silence during police custodial interrogation