In People v. Franco (86 NY2d 493) the Court of Appeals held that "when the People elect to re-present charges to a second Grand Jury which are already contained in an indictment voted by a prior Grand Jury, and the second Grand Jury returns a 'no true bill' following the re-presentment, the second Grand Jury's determination creates a legal impediment to conviction of defendant under CPL 210.20 (1) (h), requiring dismissal of the indictment." (People v. Franco, 86 NY2d at 495-496.) The Court held that the legal impediment was created by the direct conflict between the second grand jury's vote of a "no true bill" and the indictment voted by the first grand jury. (Id. at 498.) Further, the Court held that it was "the second Grand Juries' determination that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges ... that created the legal impediment, not something inherent in the proceedings of the first Grand Juries." (People v. Franco, 86 NY2d at 499.)