Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We cannot conclude that the state’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent because there is no precedent that is clearly applicable to these facts. The Supreme Court has held that any admission at trial of post-Miranda silence is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). However, the Court allows the admission of a defendant’s pre-Miranda silence for impeachment purposes when a defendant testifies at trial. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, 607, 102 S.Ct. 1309, 71 L.Ed.2d 490 (1982). Although Valentine’s sile 9th Cir.2000) (same) with United States v. Frazier, 408 F.3d 1102, 1111 (8th Cir.2005) ; United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563, 1568
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the government may comment on a defendants prearrest premiranda silence as well as his postarrest pr emiranda silence
B. holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence
C. holding that the government can use prearrest silence for impeachment purposes against a defendant because no government action induced the silence
D. holding that the defendants postarrest pr emiranda silence was admissible in the governments caseinchief because there was no official compulsion the court qualified its holding stating we do not decide today whether compulsion may exist under any other postarrest pr emiranda circumstances
E. holding that when no governmental action induced postarrest pr emiranda silence it could be introduced as evidence of guilt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.